Surely the most meaningless recent news story that has received significant coverage

[Peter]

Well, Tone was worried enough about the country's inherent Euroscepticism to shelve his commitment to a vote on the Lisbon Trophy (ie, he knew it would be rejected), so I think it's fair to say that there's absolutely no inherent correlation between the country's wider feelings about the EU and the 2008 financial crash.

Woah! Hold on. Those are two very different things. Voting for something the EU wants is very different from voting to leave it. That proves nothing.

Of course, we made a complete mess of the whole referendum thing. What we should have done is voted in our constituencies- that being the most democratic form of election, of course- and then returned OUR representative with our instruction. No argument there, is there- we the people, in our identified cohorts, have returned our instruction. One simple vote in the Commons, each MP bound by the clear view of his or her constituents.

Of course, itmay have skewed the result slightly but then if it is good enough for electing governments.......I fear the referendum has destroyed the notion of representation....

[Burney]

Woah! Hold on. Those are two very different things. Voting for something the EU wants is very different from voting to leave it. That proves nothing.

Of course, we made a complete mess of the whole referendum thing. What we should have done is voted in our constituencies- that being the most democratic form of election, of course- and then returned OUR representative with our instruction. No argument there, is there- we the people, in our identified cohorts, have returned our instruction. One simple vote in the Commons, each MP bound by the clear view of his or her constituents.

Of course, itmay have skewed the result slightly but then if it is good enough for electing governments.......I fear the referendum has destroyed the notion of representation....

You could hardly hold a referendum in 2016 on different terms to the one we had in 1975, p. That would be ridicules.

Ultimately, our membership of the European project lived by the sword of plebiscite, so if it was to die, it had to be by the same means. The precedent was set.

Oh, also, on the funding thingummy.

https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/r...ave-far-worse/

[World's End Stella]

Dislike of mass immigration massively pre-dated the financial crash, p. The BNP hit their zenith in the early 2000s.

Firstly, BNP, UKIP, le Pen etc did not cause the issues with immigration but they certainly illuminated - and some would say grossly exaggerated - them. Hard to believe that didn't have an impact, especially on older voters who compromise the large majority of the supporters of those particular parties, in the same way that comments by Obama may have influenced younger voters.

Secondly, anti-immigration sentiment may have been around for many years however the people who held those views had limited opportunity to have them felt in any meaningful way. Voting for UKIP or le Pen didn't really get them anything. Brexit however allowed them to have a direct influence on immigration, massively so. And they took it.

[Peter]

You could hardly hold a referendum in 2016 on different terms to the one we had in 1975, p. That would be ridicules.

Ultimately, our membership of the European project lived by the sword of plebiscite, so if it was to die, it had to be by the same means. The precedent was set.

Oh, also, on the funding thingummy.

https://order-order.com/2018/03/26/r...ave-far-worse/

And differently from every other referendum, obviously. I was joking

Yes, I have seen these figures elsewhere. Naturally I don't believe them, nor do I believe anything else I see or read about either campaign. Nor do I care.

My focus is where it has always been- to come up with even more wild and ludicrous reasons why we should have a second referendum mainly to wind up my dad. When he gets going on the EU it is painfully funny

[Burney]

Firstly, BNP, UKIP, le Pen etc did not cause the issues with immigration but they certainly illuminated - and some would say grossly exaggerated - them. Hard to believe that didn't have an impact, especially on older voters who compromise the large majority of the supporters of those particular parties, in the same way that comments by Obama may have influenced younger voters.

Secondly, anti-immigration sentiment may have been around for many years however the people who held those views had limited opportunity to have them felt in any meaningful way. Voting for UKIP or le Pen didn't really get them anything. Brexit however allowed them to have a direct influence on immigration, massively so. And they took it.

Hmmm. I'm no fan of them, but the BNP were highlighting the existence and prevalence of muslim gangs raping white girls in British cities when literally no-one else would touch the story and anyone who did raise it was called a racist. Hardly a wonder that they gained support in that environment. If you try to silence people, you can hardly wonder if they choose the party that offers them a voice.

The FN - while irrelevant to Brexit - are a direct response to France having the highest muslim population in Europe and understandably not being very happy about it.

And why wouldn't the populace react to immigration and multicultural policies that have a/ been imposed on them explicitly against their will and despite polling consistently showing that thy don't want them? and b/ have been an unmitigated disaster that have led to ghettoised populations being allowed to culturally, socially and politically dominate certain areas of British cities?

[World's End Stella]

Hmmm. I'm no fan of them, but the BNP were highlighting the existence and prevalence of muslim gangs raping white girls in British cities when literally no-one else would touch the story and anyone who did raise it was called a racist. Hardly a wonder that they gained support in that environment. If you try to silence people, you can hardly wonder if they choose the party that offers them a voice.

The FN - while irrelevant to Brexit - are a direct response to France having the highest muslim population in Europe and understandably not being very happy about it.

And why wouldn't the populace react to immigration and multicultural policies that have a/ been imposed on them explicitly against their will and despite polling consistently showing that thy don't want them? and b/ have been an unmitigated disaster that have led to ghettoised populations being allowed to culturally, socially and politically dominate certain areas of British cities?

They had every right to react to policies they disliked. But your original point was that this was a rigged game and I disagreed.

[Burney]

They had every right to react to policies they disliked. But your original point was that this was a rigged game and I disagreed.

In terms of how the thing was set up, it was a rigged game.

There entire establishment was lined up on one side, while the other's big hitters were Boris, Gove and...errr...that's it. It was a remarkable victory of popular sentiment over vested interest. Not only did the sitting government and civil service basically campaign to remain (even trying to circumvent purdah rules to do so at one point), so did the Bank of England (which was supposed to remain neutral) and various other bodies. The Government paid for a leafletting campaign to support Remain and even extended voter registration for days in order to allow young voters who hadn't bothered their arses registering earlier to do so in the hope they'd vote Remain. The Remain campaign in the shape of the Government played an incredibly dirty game and used (or tried to use) every bit of advantage their position gave them. The idea that it was even close to a level playing field is absurd.

[Peter]

In terms of how the thing was set up, it was a rigged game.

There entire establishment was lined up on one side, while the other's big hitters were Boris, Gove and...errr...that's it. It was a remarkable victory of popular sentiment over vested interest. Not only did the sitting government and civil service basically campaign to remain (even trying to circumvent purdah rules to do so at one point), so did the Bank of England (which was supposed to remain neutral) and various other bodies. The Government paid for a leafletting campaign to support Remain and even extended voter registration for days in order to allow young voters who hadn't bothered their arses registering earlier to do so in the hope they'd vote Remain. The Remain campaign in the shape of the Government played an incredibly dirty game and used (or tried to use) every bit of advantage their position gave them. The idea that it was even close to a level playing field is absurd.

It was most certainly rigged but in the wrong way, which ultimately worked in Leave's favour. The establishment camedown heavily on one side and condemned it to defeat.

We have no idea where a level field of play would have taken us so it is only fair that we find out by having another referendum