Poll: The Official OcUK EU Referendum Exit poll (and results discussion thread)

How did you vote in the EU Referendum?

  • Remain a member of the European Union

    Votes: 861 53.0%
  • Leave the European Union

    Votes: 763 47.0%

  • Total voters
    1,624
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have seen a petition floating about to try and force a second vote. Can someone explain if this can actually happen? If so, what in the **** is the point in voting?

My small brain is struggling to understand :(

referendum isn't legally binding so yes it could happen
will a second referendum happen, cant see it. Regardless of a petition, petitions just get ignored all the time.
the only chance I see of a second referendum is if Eu agree to massive change, which I cant see happening.
 
I understand what you mean regarding our memberships subs (though the amount we will actually save is debateable)

But it seems Cornwall don't fully trust the UK government are going to give them that free money like the EU does...

It's not free money though is it? It's the fraction of the money we get back from UK taxpayers' contribution to Brussels. I support the principle of investment in the poorer areas of the UK and envisage that continuing when the Brexit process has finished. Incidentally, I think there are lot more "poorer regions" of the UK than the EU does.

If the EU didn't decide to expand into a supranational government and remained a trade block then we wouldn't be in a situation where we suddenly have to make a big decision like this with all the huge changes and implications.

If they'd just listened to our concerns about free movement, CAP, Jean-Claude Juncker a little bit then the result would have been quite different. The EU only has themselves to blame for this result.
 
Can someone explain if this can actually happen? If so, what in the **** is the point in voting?

It's a game of high stakes poker.

Maybe the EU will blink and give Cameron much more than he originally got, which will give him an excuse to repeat the vote.

If the UK got full immigration controls, that would easily swing the vote to remain.
 
If they'd just listened to our concerns about free movement, CAP, Jean-Claude Juncker a little bit then the result would have been quite different. The EU only has themselves to blame for this result.

I was flip-flopping the evening before the vote until I read Juncker's twitter feed. The guy really is a liability.
 
Failing to see what the long term gain of leaving is? Years of instability followed by things being much the same?

Here are the long term benefits:

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...01/EUMembershipEconomicBenefits#division-4409

Quote:
"I care about facing up to the facts. It is only right to examine what voting to leave might do and, frankly, we should be concerned. In the Treasury, we have done a lot of work to understand what leaving the EU might mean for this country. One study of the short-term impact of leaving suggests that if we vote to leave, we could be pushing ourselves headlong into a recession within a couple of years. In fact, compared with remaining, ​we might well see a rise in unemployment of between 520,000 and 820,000; a fall of between 12% and 15% in the value of sterling; a decrease in GDP of between 3.6% and 6.0%; and increased borrowing of anything up to £39 billion, which is the equivalent of a third of the NHS budget each year. Some people say, “So what?” Others say, “This is a price worth paying.” For the vast majority of people in this country, however, these things—they are just what will happen in the immediate aftermath—really matter.

We have debated employment rights quite a bit and heard about the benefits of the EU in creating and guaranteeing them, but no one among the leavers has been quite clear about which of these rights would be guaranteed if we leave. So many questions have been left unanswered about what Britain might be like if we left. Of course, there is also the possibility we might still just have to follow any regulations handed down by Brussels, but, crucially, with no choice or influence over what they are. Norway is a clear example: it is required to comply with EU legislation, such as the working time directive or the agency workers directive, in exchange for access to the EU market, but, crucially, with no vote on the decision making."
 
Get rid of Juncker and co, replace with elected figureheads who aren't crazed EU federalists, allow brakes on immigration when it is clearly at an unsustainable level and I'll be happy IN.

This would never happen. These people are the same sort of people who ran FIFA into the ground. Stubborn, corrupt and power mad.
 
So we can kick out all the polish that work and make contributions to this country which will then stop the English chavs who claim benefits and breed children to get more benefits, can then stop complaining about polish taking their jobs and get back to watching Jeremy Kyle in peace.

I'd decided to give this thread a wide berth for 24 hours, now I remember why I came to that decision.
 
I know they are not going to invoke article 50.

Is that in the same way a lot of the Leave voters on here knew they would never win the vote? (Because the 'establishment' wouldn't let it happen)

You don't know that at all, you may think it, but that is far far from reality

I'm sorry and I don't want to appear rude, but that is just tin foil hat thinking.
 
If the EU didn't decide to expand into a supranational government and remained a trade block then we wouldn't be in a situation where we suddenly have to make a big decision like this with all the huge changes and implications.

If you had watched that BBC4 prog about the EU(several weeks ago at the start of this campaign) when it talked to the people who were involved in the original negotiations you will have seen that the politicians admitting it was not just a trading block and would develop.
 
I have seen a petition floating about to try and force a second vote. Can someone explain if this can actually happen?

It needs 100,000 signatures to be considered in parliament, doesn't mean they will go ahead with it though. It currently has nearly a million, more than any other petition they've run IIRC.

If so, what in the **** is the point in voting?

My small brain is struggling to understand :(

Maybe some people have changed their opinion after the fallout, either for or against. Could also be used to have a stronger bargaining position with the EU.
 
It's a game of high stakes poker.

Maybe the EU will blink and give Cameron much more than he originally got, which will give him an excuse to repeat the vote.

If the UK got full immigration controls, that would easily swing the vote to remain.

I see. So we're trying to bluff the EU by saying, 'right, we're off lads, unless you up your game and give us X - I'll call another vote'
 
Get rid of Juncker and co, replace with elected figureheads who aren't crazed EU federalists, allow brakes on immigration when it is clearly at an unsustainable level and I'll be happy IN.

That's the everybody must do as I want theory. Funny these other countries have their own forms of what you said that will disagree with what you say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom