Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
My own personal interpretation of the vote is that there was a small but persistent hard core of die-hard Eurosceptics, who managed to convince a large body of indecisive and 'floating' voters to vote Leave

I think it was more that there was a hard core of Eurosceptics who raised the isssue to the level that there was a refrendum. Then the EUref became the means whereby there was a shock to the system as it was discovered that the number of people voting to leave was higher than expected.

I think there was an underlying assumption on both sides that the vote for leave would be substantially lower.

My recollection is that some thought that the likes of Mr Johnson were pushing the leave campaign without the expectation that they would 'win'.

And my other recollection of the day was that Mr Farage conceded almost immediately. So there you have one of the apparent instigators and culprits of the leave campaign who clearly didn't understand what was happening.

I also wonder how many voters were'floating'. People I know who voted and discuss their vote pretty much made up their minds before the referendum. It's notable that the vast majority of those vocally expressing their position were on the remain side - and that a significant number had no knowledge of anybody who they knew who voted leave. Even today I find myself suprised at discovering somebody I thought all along was a quiet remainer who actually voted to leave.

The EUref 'broke' the system because it separated the question being asked from the politics and manifestos of the established parties.

And this is the problem of separation between the actual views of the public vs the chatter and talk in the media and in public is a problem that still lurks in politics after the event. I think there is a risk that the mainstream media, the Conservatives, Labour, and Libdems all don't understand the so called 'red wall' of constutuencies that influenced at the last GE.
 
But there weren't any rules on this were there. Wasn't the referendum just a means of judging the mood of the country - in the hope that the resident government would get the support to remain?
I think we've had all the legal challenges possible as to if it was a referendum that the Gov't can later consider as to it being an instruction, if it might or if it will be acted on.

The only rule I'm referring to is the understanding a majority is just one more than t'others.
As said, while I empathise that had the rule been that perhaps a 2/3 majority was required for change then there wouldn't have been change, that wasn't the case.

Cameron screwed up the whole design of the referendum. I blame him for our division on Brexit that still exists.
He designed it to be ambiguous so as to allow him a 'get out' if things didn't go as he and the eu camp hoped would be Remain. That did fail but the whole thing became far to big for him to then renege on the understanding of what had been promised.
 
Last edited:
As for Newcastle....:


It seems that 'the establishment' did rather well over there.

r.png


From: EU referendum results by region: North East
The establishment did rather well? 50.7% Remain, 49.3% Leave was the result in Newcastle.

An even more divided result than the national picture, or does the divided nation trick only apply when the Leave side win?
 
Last edited:
I think it was more that there was a hard core of Eurosceptics who raised the isssue to the level that there was a refrendum. Then the EUref became the means whereby there was a shock to the system as it was discovered that the number of people voting to leave was higher than expected.

I think there was an underlying assumption on both sides that the vote for leave would be substantially lower.

My recollection is that some thought that the likes of Mr Johnson were pushing the leave campaign without the expectation that they would 'win'.

And my other recollection of the day was that Mr Farage conceded almost immediately. So there you have one of the apparent instigators and culprits of the leave campaign who clearly didn't understand what was happening.

I also wonder how many voters were'floating'. People I know who voted and discuss their vote pretty much made up their minds before the referendum. It's notable that the vast majority of those vocally expressing their position were on the remain side - and that a significant number had no knowledge of anybody who they knew who voted leave. Even today I find myself suprised at discovering somebody I thought all along was a quiet remainer who actually voted to leave.

The EUref 'broke' the system because it separated the question being asked from the politics and manifestos of the established parties.

And this is the problem of separation between the actual views of the public vs the chatter and talk in the media and in public is a problem that still lurks in politics after the event. I think there is a risk that the mainstream media, the Conservatives, Labour, and Libdems all don't understand the so called 'red wall' of constutuencies that influenced at the last GE.
Your thoughts and findings from conversations with friends etc mirror ours.

I and all of the people we know who voted leave had decided on their position years before the referendum and were not going to be swayed easily.

The opportunity arose and the (relatively) silent majority took it
 
But there weren't any rules on this were there. Wasn't the referendum just a means of judging the mood of the country - in the hope that the resident government would get the support to remain?

There was an argument that the referendum was advisory.

My view at times has been it would have been better taht the questrion was asked on that basis.

And I think with hindsight if it had been setup solely on that basis that we would have seen that advice not taken. The evidence of the aftermath is that the UK parliament would have continued as if nothing had changed blithely ignoring the inconvenient truth and the EU acting as if it had nothing to answer to.

That is quite worrying.

Consider if the UK and EU had gone into a huddle after the EUref and thought about *why* it had happened and then announced "We note what the pubic has said and going to fix this".

I think on that basis the result would have been properly and justifdiably reversible. And many who voted leave would have been amenable to a second EUref on the basis of change. We certainly had long enough.

Instead the dogma left the EU without a major economy and the UK in a state of turmoil.

The institutions blindly belittled themselves. As an example I don't think Mr Bercow realises his own symbolism.
 
The evidence of the aftermath is that the UK parliament would have continued as if nothing had changed blithely ignoring the inconvenient truth and the EU acting as if it had nothing to answer to.
If anyone labours under the misapprehension that the UK is/was unique amongst EU member states they need look no further than our neighbour across the channel, where fully two-thirds of the French electorate couldn't be bothered to vote in their national elections last weekend. Why is that? Perhaps the French people are as disillusioned with their crop of politicians that persistently ignore them in the same way that the UK electorate took the opportunity of the EU Ref to give our politicians a bloody nose?

The arrogant way that politicians all through Europe have ignored their own electorates when they have voted against the EU's ever-creeping federalist ambitions (France & the Netherlands both voted against the EU Constitution in 2005 and Ireland against it when repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty in 2008) is coming home to roost.
 
I think it was more that there was a hard core of Eurosceptics who raised the isssue to the level that there was a refrendum. Then the EUref became the means whereby there was a shock to the system as it was discovered that the number of people voting to leave was higher than expected.

I think there was an underlying assumption on both sides that the vote for leave would be substantially lower.

My recollection is that some thought that the likes of Mr Johnson were pushing the leave campaign without the expectation that they would 'win'.

And my other recollection of the day was that Mr Farage conceded almost immediately. So there you have one of the apparent instigators and culprits of the leave campaign who clearly didn't understand what was happening.

I also wonder how many voters were'floating'. People I know who voted and discuss their vote pretty much made up their minds before the referendum. It's notable that the vast majority of those vocally expressing their position were on the remain side - and that a significant number had no knowledge of anybody who they knew who voted leave. Even today I find myself suprised at discovering somebody I thought all along was a quiet remainer who actually voted to leave.

The EUref 'broke' the system because it separated the question being asked from the politics and manifestos of the established parties.

And this is the problem of separation between the actual views of the public vs the chatter and talk in the media and in public is a problem that still lurks in politics after the event. I think there is a risk that the mainstream media, the Conservatives, Labour, and Libdems all don't understand the so called 'red wall' of constutuencies that influenced at the last GE.

This is a valid assessment, though, again, one that is based on impressions and anecdotal evidence - simply because that is all we have to work with, given that no one actually asked the voters how strongly they felt about their choice at the time.

My original point, however, remains: it is highly unlikely that the majority of all voters (i.e. more than 48.11% of all voters) were 'hard Eurosceptics'. Extremely unlikely, statistically speaking.
 
This is a valid assessment, though, again, one that is based on impressions and anecdotal evidence - simply because that is all we have to work with, given that no one actually asked the voters how strongly they felt about their choice at the time.

My original point, however, remains: it is highly unlikely that the majority of all voters (i.e. more than 48.11% of all voters) were 'hard Eurosceptics'. Extremely unlikely, statistically speaking.
Though I have no evidence, I’m convinced that a significant portion of voters in EUref were simply anti-Cameron and voted accordingly, not appreciating that their votes would tip the the balance towards a Brexit result.
 
Though I have no evidence, I’m convinced that a significant portion of voters in EUref were simply anti-Cameron and voted accordingly, not appreciating that their votes would tip the the balance towards a Brexit result.

I haven't come across that sort of voter logic at all in the last 5 or 6 years.

Irritation regarding Mr Cameron from both sides? Yes. But affecting voter intentions? No.
 
Personally i think the UK public have long regarded the workings of the EU as a bureaucratic joke.

Even the BBC agreed with this in the mid to late 90's with their portrayal of Gordon Brittas as the perfect candidate for this organisation.
 
Last edited:
Personally i think the UK public have long regarded the workings of the EU as an bureaucratic joke.
But endorse monarchy. I say endorse, but of course, they've never been asked.....
 
Your thoughts and findings from conversations with friends etc mirror ours.

I and all of the people we know who voted leave had decided on their position years before the referendum and were not going to be swayed easily.

The opportunity arose and the (relatively) silent majority took it
I couldn’t agree more. Both with friends, and at work, where I meet an enormous amount of folk, my personal experience mirrored yours, which was when given their first opportunity to make their relative silence felt, plenty stepped forward.
Like myself, the common gripe seemed to be peoples distinct and obvious revulsion of the ‘establishment’ massaging and manipulating huge swathes of media coverage promoting their ‘Remainer’ agenda.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom