Private Eye editor Ian Hislop has said remain voters in the EU Referendum are entitled to their say. Speaking on Question Time he said: “Even if you lose the vote you are entitled to go on making the argument”
Opposition is healthy, it is important. However, as with a general election in which a minority of voters may have voted for the winning party, we all have to abide by the outcome of the vote. Discuss the way forward, but don't waste your breath complaining that the election or referendum wasn't fair because it didn't go your way.
I understand Hislop as meaning that all points of view must be considered when trade deals are being negotiated, rather than arguing about the referendum per se. No sane government can ignore the views of the opposition. Nobody can argue that the vote should not be respected. Leave won, but we all share in shaping the future.
1 Like
Ian Hislop says it in a nutshell.
It is the attitude of the Remainers who call us whingers that needs to change.
Leave want the UK Parliament to be sovereign and so do Remain. A debate in Parliament is necessary as the Referendum was advisory, even though Leave are keen to say that it was the will of the people.
Let us hope that a proper debate will bring out the true state of affairs regarding Leave v Remain and not the vitriol and lies that were propagated during the Campaign.
May I remind you that it was only the will of 37 per cent of the people and British citizens who have already lost their vote and who are more directly affected were not only denied their say, but were taken to the High Court to disallow their participation.
To add insult to injury, I understand that the ending of the fifteen year rule is due to be debated in the House fairly soon.
Remainers are certainly entitled to keep making their views known and indeed should. One of the distinguishing features between the Remain campaigns pre-vote claims and those of Vote Leave and their allies is, that while Remain's were largely alarmist and negative, they were also truthful, whereas Leave made outrageous claims and promises which could never be kept. In my mind, that is one reason why Parliament is far from obliged to follow the Referendum outcome. Another is that the choice of method and suffrage made by Cameron was clearly unfair: it excluded all EU citizens living and working in UK although it directly affects them and also 16-17 year olds. After all, it's their future we are playing around with. Not to mention the 15 year rule: to abolish it now, AFTER the Referendum, is the height of cynicism.
I am quite sure the Remainers would have taken the same view (will of the people) if they had succeeded!
Given the very small proportiuon of those currently entitled to vote who have registered to do (about 5% I recall) it is unlikely that the removal of the "15 year rule" would have influenced the outcome even if all those who registered as a result had voted to remain.
Whatever the statistics the actual number who voted to leave certainly exceeds those who have voted for any UK Governement in living memory and there has always been a large majority of the voting population who did not. Since the outcome of General Elections has never been disputed why the continuing carping about the Referendum. Democracy is about accepting the wish of the majority even if you don't agree with it.
I do agree with you about the 15 year rule which had no merit. Either all UK citizens should be able to vote or all UK residents. There are arguments for both but at least either would have the virtue of logic and consistency.
Since very little, apart from a modest drift in the exchange rate, of the doom mongers predictions have actually happened it's now time to discount the rest and move on to sorting out the way forward in a spirit of mutal co-operation recognising that both UK and the remeianing members of the EU (and the rest of the world) have much to gain from a re-appraisal of the current unsatisfactory situation into which the EU has drifted as a result of too many failures to make decisions and too much aimless drifting towards the readily visible rocks.
£4,300?
Unfortunately Chris under David Cameron we ex pat British citizens were sacrificed on the altar of the extreme right wing of the Tory party who seem to believe that if you exercise your legal right to live where you want within the EU that should mean that you relinquish your right to be considered as a real British citizen.
This was demonstrated by the WFP debacle and taking those who wished the fifteen year rule to be repealed before the Referendum to the Supreme Court.
Not only that the rules for the referendum were supposed to be based on those for a general election, which excludes Gibralter and members of the House of Lords, both of which were allowed to vote.
Australians who had a two year visa were also allowed to vote.
If that is true representation, then I will eat my hat!
Jane I believe the 15 year rule was passed as law in 2000 (to take effect in 2002). So it's Labour who stuffed the expat vote, not David Cameron.
Michael, I can't see why you are referring to £4,300.
Yes, but it was in the Conservative Party Manifesto to repeal it and not to do so before the Referendum is solely down to Cameron.
It was George Osborne's "fact" of the loss of income for the average UK family after Brexit.
Unfortunately, describing it as a fact could be a step too far, but the recent pessimistic attitude survey of British business is not exactly comforting.
£4,300 cannot be too far off what ex pats with British pensions paid in UK will lose due to the drop in the fall of the pound, caused solely by the result of the Referendum.
I think it is worth reflecting upon the contribution made by the press to the Referendum. I read very informative articles about the EU and its shortcomings, including ways of rectifying them, written by the very MEPs who were most closely involved, which were never published by the papers. The BBC behaved outrageously, and can never be trusted again. Many politicians went unheard.
We immigrants into Europe (the term "ex-pats" has always suggested to me a temporary and uncommitted absence abroad) were largely ignored, despite having more relevant experience than most of the UK population north of Watford of the EU and its way of life.
I think both sides of the Referendum campaign need to be aware of the low standards of the press in general and the BBC in particular.
As to the 15 year rule - I have heard much more complaint about this since the Referendum than I did after the last General Election, surely if the UK is paying our pensions we would have been equally concerned over who was running the economy in which it originates? We have no vote in France where we pay our taxes, are we complaining about that too?
"fact" is pretty close to how it was presented.
The change in the exchange rate is only about 7c (just over 5%) since immediatley before the vote and less since the rate in April 2016. In the 12 months before the vote it traded in the range of about 1.23-1.25 (http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=GBP&to=EUR&view=1Y). Hardly dramatic. It's still pretty close to the 5 year average of about 1.20. While the peaks fo 1.40 ro so were a pleasant bonus they were not typical and financial planning based on them would be very precarious.
Your prediction would only hold for someone with an income of £86,000. Probably not very "typical" of "ex pats with Britsh pension paid in UK"
Of course those in favour of REMAIN must carry on making the points, in the hope that a disasterous mistake can be averted. Am Imissing something in this discussion, because members seem to be saying "not much change really, why the scaremongering?" Well of course nothing much has changed, article 50 hasn't been triggered and UK has not left the EU. They refer to 'Post Brexit' when they are really referring to 'Post Referendun' The doom and gloom was said to happen WHEN the UK leaves the EU. Give it chance. I still believe that negotiations will take years primarily because Mrs May says "We won't trigger article 50 until we are sure what we will end up with" whilst it is reported regularly the 'The EU' says " No negotiations until after you trigger article 50"
Yours is, of course, a minority opinion. 52% of the UK electorate thought it would be a rather good idea.
37 per cent of the population eligible to vote actually.
NO!
52% of those who chose ot vote.
If you choose not to vote then you have excluded yourself from expressing an opinion and therefore must accept the result and not bitch about it afterwards. The 38% who chose not to vote had the chance to do so.
Thank you Diana - very eloquently put and glad to see that it isn't just me that feels uncomfortable with the term "ex-pat" being bandied around as if this confers some superior rights. For me an expat is someone temporarily living in another country, usually for reasons of work. Those moving over for a new way of life are choosing to do so and accepting the risks and/or potential advantages of doing so and are immigrants like everyone else.
Absolutely Shelley.
We live in three countries (France, Cyprus and UK). We are guests in two of them and expect to conform to their way of doing things. It is often different to the UK, often better, sometimes not. Some things seem a bit strange but often when asked for the reason it is more easily understood. I would not dream of telling nationals of the countires in which I live as guests (even though we are residents in Cyprus) how they should run their country. Why many UK expats think they have the right to do this escapes me. It seems to me very bad manners. If its so great in UK why don't they go "home". Neither their host country nor those of us who share it happily would miss them I suspect.