View comments by: Most Recent - first / last | Most Popular - first / last | Replies - hide / show

Have we been mis-sold a Brexit ? Should politicians be held to account ?

As the reality of the post-Brexit world begins to unwind are we beginning to develop a tad of buyers remorse ? Should silversurfers now press for a meaningful public enquiry to assess whether the Brexit was mis-sold ? Bankers were held to account for PPI mis-selling. Shouldn't we expect politicians to be subject to similar same rules of conduct ? Should they not also be held to account if guilty of misrepresentation or misleading statements that affect the national and public interest ?

Created By on 08/08/2016

Not a member?

You need to be a member to interact with Silversurfers. Joining is free and simple to do. Click the button below to join today!

1st Apr 2017 09:53:35 (Last activity: 8th Nov 2019 15:52:41)
Thanks for voting!
Many tears ago I voted to join the ----- Common Market ---- NOT the E U, I thought I was joining a trading organisation not a political organisation run by the communist party, how wrong I was.
Now we are breaking the shackels and we can be free again, oh what joy.

Britain is not part of Europe but a island off the coast of Mainland Europe and have been independent for a long time, I do like the smell of freedom
Response from ColinM1 made on 3rd Apr 2018 18:07:06
Britain is part of Europe and always will be . It's present constitution is severely flawed with a parliamentary system that is non functional . House of Lords - dead as the proverbial dodo and costing the gullible tax payers an arm and a leg . Heading at present to being less than a third rate power!
Response from latin made on 8th Nov 2019 15:52:41
I do not agree with a word you say,l do not want to be part of the corrupt Federalists dream!
7th Apr 2019 09:38:37
Thanks for voting!
My apologies as a newcomer to be intruding on a long term topic amongst what seem to be regulars . We are all entitled to opinions and should maintain a mutual respect ( however difficult at times ! ) The anti - Eu rants cannot however pass without comment .Brexit has cost the British economy £550 million a week since the Referendum as business investment dries up amid political paralysis in Westminster. According to the Report by Credit Agency Standard & Poor, since the June 2016 vote, 3% has been shaved off the GDP. That equates to “ foregone economic activity “ of £ 6.6 Billion in each of the 10 Quarters since the Referendum or £ 66 Billion. Household spending would have been considerably stronger – in line with GDP – had the Referendum not occurred . It added that external trade did not see any significant boost from the pounds’ collapse, contrary to claims from leading Brexit proponents that exports would be boosted . Uncertainty over the shape and form of Brexit will take , has increasingly paralysed any forward looking decision making , Please excuse me as I have to feed the chickens .
11th Mar 2019 16:07:20
Thanks for voting!
Succinctly put Yodama, and I agree with you entirely.

This is our "LAST CHANCE EVER" to be rid of the EU and it's ruling dictators. After all isn't that what unelected politicians really are ? You should have asked your MP to read your post out in the House of Commons.

Some people are still suggesting 'we didn't know what we were voting for' !! Well I wasn't one of them. I want the UK to be strong and independent again, trading with the rest of the world, and not being told what to do and what not to do by Mr Barnier and his cronies. And in all honesty, talking to people who voted leave, I have NOT rpt NOT come across one who has said that they would now vote differently. And I am sure by now that everyone 'does' know what they are voting for.

I dread to think what is going to happen if we 52% are let down by our own 'INEPT' parliamentary representatives !! At least we will have chance to get rid of a lot of them next time round...….. unlike our inability to vote out Tusk, Barnier et al.

I feel better now. Time for a cup of afternoon tea. Rule Brittania.
10th Mar 2019 10:27:09 (Last activity: 10th Mar 2019 16:18:42)
Thanks for voting!
Read you rant Parsnip, and I thought I would have a rant too.

Just as we were all duped into believing that joining, the EEC in 1975 was about free flow and integration of trade and economies - it was all lies! They have incrementally encroached on our freedoms, laws, and every other aspect of our lives, a bunch of highwaymen/ women (to be politically correct.)

The referendum in 1975, divided the people just as it does today. This reminds me of the saying- "divide and conquer." We are a divided nation and therefore weak, easy pickings for weapon-less conquest of this Great Britain.

The supposed "buddy" system of the EEC that we blithely entered into- gave birth in 1993 to a controlling giant that changed its name from the EEC to The European Union, a completely different kettle of fish, ( apt reference to the fishing debacle.)

At the head of this organisation is the ERT or European Round Table of Industrialists, a multiple headed Hydra intent on an Empire of controlling the world through the manipulation of economies through big business.
The new world order,( Hitler bleated on about wanting a new world order,) they order we serve!

The EU Parliament is a vehicle merely to rubber stamp what they are ordered to rubber stamp. A faceless unelected bunch of puppets with a mandate to formulate and issue rules and regulations that can bring other member states to their knees.
On the question of MP's, they are ordinary people with the gift of the gab who have been catapulted into a position of power or groomed in posh schools. They are all fallible, can, and do make disastrous decisions. I wonder at my own mental stability in actually voting for them.

We must surgically remove the EU now or we will become sucked into the EU black hole and disappear as a proud country and a people....just lackeys at the end of the day!
Out with the Tyrants I say!

Yes, RULE BRITANNIA indeed, we must rule ourselves.

Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.
The nations not so blest as thee
Must, in their turn, to tyrants fall,
Must in their turn, to tyrants fall.
While thou shalt flourish great and free:
The dread and envy of them all.
Rule, Britannia! Britannia, rule the waves!
Britons never, never, never shall be slaves.

My rant over.
Response from Yodama made on 10th Mar 2019 16:18:42
Yep! No more shilly-shallying and waiting games. Brings the meaning of procrastination up to a whole new level.
9th Mar 2019 08:31:06
Thanks for voting!
Seems to me that we have all been deceived by the political parties over Brexit. The Referendum was pushed through to quickly. Not enough time or thought was allowed to prepare a fair and honest argument for either leave or remain. A feel that the whole process has been based on political agendas to further their own party political careers or campaigns and not for the benefit of our country. This is Great Britain or the United Kingdom, which ever you prefer. Not a political battleground for the benefit of the few. We should be united in this troubled time to bring our wonderful country back into the world leading position it should and can be if we can control our destiny and not be told what we must do by our own self motivated government and political leaders or the unelected faceless spongers in Brussels.
Rant over.
16th Feb 2018 12:54:25
Thanks for voting!
Simple answer, YES. The two main protagonists, Gove and Johnson, are both journalists who would never let the truth get in the way of a good story. Yard arm and dangle come to mind.
15th Apr 2017 17:34:30 (Last activity: 16th Apr 2017 19:21:32)
Thanks for voting!
I feel that many people voted to exit the EU without proper knowledge as the politicians themselves have admitted they do not know the outcomes.
Perhaps at the end of the negotiations we will all have a clearer picture and should then have another vote.
Response from Wilf made on 15th Apr 2017 18:24:21
Problem is what if its a reverse vote? My concern is the British public were not given the options and correct info at the 1st vote
Response from Yodama made on 16th Apr 2017 19:21:32
You may be right Nan!

The argument about Brexit today stems from having the blinders pulled off and a divided percentage of the population voting to leave the EU, those who are remorsefully finally seeing the light.
The Emperor is seems, has no clothes after all.

There was as much information given to voters then as there was for Brexit. Do any of us know what really happens behind the scenes? They only allow the population at large selected information bytes, which are sifted, through their fine mesh of intention and concealment.
Disinformation or lack of information.

Many voted to join the EU in 1972 because they were faced with the "No" campaigners who vehemently opposed it, Enoch Powell (however you may think of him) a widely disliked avid right-winger and Tony Benn a left-winger. Hobson's choice perhaps. All they argued against is now in truth revealed, we are in servitude to this supranational body for all time.

Our elected Parliament lay down and subordinated themselves to this unelected supranational body
Their laws, which are imposed on us, are not in our national interest, Brussels laws imposed on us goes straight into British law, and Parliament is not consulted in order for them to be promulgated.
Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath were fully aware that the "Common Market" was just a front so that we would blindly vote on a false premise.
Now the British public who clearly see the folly of their decisions are desperate to untangle themselves from this unholy marriage. Brexit was the result, now our ministers must do, as we the lied to public wish and take us out, maybe battered but out we must be.

Maybe read the book 'The Great Deception' by Christopher Booker and Richard North.

A last thought, are we being led into yet another deception and are we doing the right thing?
We will never know until it is too late!
31st Mar 2017 12:56:19
Thanks for voting!
Should politicians be held to account? The jury is out on that one, but maybe not Informed democrat! Events are unfolding as they should, an awakening is taking place.

You talk of buyers remorse. I feel buyers remorse for ever having entered this diabolical marriage with the European Union. Maybe others are feeling it as strongly.
Misleading and misrepresentation you say! Nothing new here, has there been anything else throughout history?
Deep and dark rabbit hole we are entering! We are facing a formidable task in negotiating with the EU.
Brexit is the result of a people who feel the claustrophobia of the EU's control and domination, those who are incrementally erasing our rights and freedoms.
A vain struggle for Britain to free itself from the domination of a group of people who have no legitimacy, authority or who do not have the British interest at heart ( and no I am not going to sing.)

The EU is a well oiled machine and with its laws and regulations, will eventually turn us into a nation of helpless dumbed down robots who are unable to speak or act or go about our business lest it impinges on some ridiculous controlling law or legislation.
Much mumbling and complaining about these regulations and interference has not achieved anything. By voting to exit, we may be able to cut the cords that bind us to this abominable master.

I just hope that deals detrimental to Britain are not being hatched behind closed doors while a different picture is played out in the Media.
Theresa May and her government must be resolute.

Where are those tranquillisers!
Do you think that was a bit of a rant? Well yes it was!
13th Aug 2016 14:04:16 (Last activity: 31st Mar 2017 08:14:52)
Thanks for voting!
Politicians have always misrepresented things. They do not live in our world.
If you want an inquiry into Brexit then by the same criteria we should have one into every general election ever held.
I do not suffer from buyers remorse because I accept the results of legally held elections. If the remainers had won, would we see calls for a rerun. I doubt it.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 14th Aug 2016 17:10:41
Hello Sailor

Nice to hear from you. In the interest of informed discussion and as a matter of fact, the result of the Brexit referendum has no legal force. This is because the Referendum Act 2015 made no provision that the outcome of the Brexit Referendum has any legal status. If you have been led to believe that it does, then as far as I can see you have been misled. Nor did the Refererendum Act 2015 define what a decisive majority looks like. Please contrast this position with the legislation that was passed in 2011 for the Electoral System Referendum which did give legal status to the outcome of that referendum - hence the outcome of that result was legally binding: the difference between the tow situations is clear. The outcome of a general election is legally binding, but that is quite different matter.

It is far from clear whether the UK Goverment has constitutional authority to claim that it has the power to say that the outcome of the Brexit vote ( inconclusive as the vote generally was ) is valid by triggering Article 50. The matter will be heard in the Supreme Court later this year. If you have any evidence that this information is incorrect please can you provide full details as I am entirley open to be shown that any of this is incorrect. Please provide source references.

Response from sailor made on 31st Mar 2017 08:14:52
Hi Informed Democrat.
I voted in the referendum in the knowledge that the the Gov. would act on the result. It has now done so in accordance with the result. That makes it legal in my view. My view on leaving the EU was because I did not want to become part of a United States of Europe.

28th Oct 2016 13:50:08
Thanks for voting!
For those of you who think voting in or out of the European Union made a blind bit of difference.

In or out, it will be business as usual, just an adjustment or two and a fresh coat of paint.

These are the all powerful Industrialists who actually make the decisions and tell the EU what to do:

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT)

Chairman - Benoît Potier-Air Liquide-France
Vice-Chairmen - Nils S. Andersen-A.P. Møller-Mærsk -Denmark
Vittorio Colao - Vodafone Group -United Kingdom

José María Álvarez-Pallete López-Telefónica-Spain
Jean-Paul Agon-L'Oréal-France
Paulo Azevedo-Sonae -Portugal
Ton Büchner - AkzoNobel-The Netherlands
Ben van Beurden-Royal Dutch Shell-The Netherlands
Kurt Bock-BASF-Germany
Jean-François van Boxmeer-Heineken-The Netherlands
Carlo Bozotti-STMicroelectronics-Italy
Svein Richard Brandtzaeg-Norsk Hydro-Norway
Paul Bulcke-Nestlé-Switzerland
Pierre-André de Chalendar-Saint-Gobain-France
Jean-Pierre Clamadieu-Solvay-Belgium
Iain Conn-Centrica-United Kingdom
Ian Davis-Rolls-Royce-United Kingdom
Rodolfo De Benedetti-CIR-Italy
Claudio Descalzi-Eni-Italy
Wolfgang Eder-voestalpine-Austria
Henrik Ehrnrooth-KONE-Finland
John Elkann-FCA-Italy
Christoph Franz-F. Hoffmann-La Roche-Switzerland
Ignacio S. Galán-Iberdrola-Spain
Timotheus Höttges-Deutsche Telekom-Germany
Paul Hermelin-Capgemini-France
Zsolt Hernádi-MOL-Hungary
Heinrich Hiesinger-thyssenkrupp-Germany
Frans van Houten-Royal Philips-The Netherlands
Pablo Isla-Inditex-Spain
Leif Johansson-Ericsson-Sweden
Joe Kaeser-Siemens-Germany
Bruno Lafont-LafargeHolcim-France
Thomas Leysen-Umicore-Belgium
Martin Lundstedt-Volvo Group-Sweden
Bill McDermott-SAP-Germany
Nancy McKinstry-Wolters Kluwer-The Netherlands
Gérard Mestrallet-ENGIE-France
Lakshmi N. Mittal=ArcelorMittal=United Kingdom
Dimitri Papalexopoulos=Titan Cement=Greece
Jan du Plessis=Rio Tinto=United Kingdom
Patrick Pouyanné=TOTAL-France
Norbert Reithofer-BMW Group-Germany
Stéphane Richard-Orange-France
Güler Sabanci-Sabanci Holding-Turkey
Risto Siilasmaa-Nokia-Finland
Tony Smurfit-Smurfit Kappa Group-Ireland
Ulrich Spiesshofer-ABB-Switzerland
Carl-Henric Svanberg-BP-United Kingdom
Johannes Teyssen-E.ON-Germany
Jacob Wallenberg-Investor AB-Sweden

Here is a quote from a meeting held after Brexit:
"European companies must forge new partnerships with UK so both regions can continue to thrive".
Press Release
"The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT), whilst respecting today’s outcome, is disappointed that the people of the United Kingdom have voted in favour of leaving the European Union.
The ERT brings together 51 Chief Executives and Chairmen of major European multinational companies, including BP, Vodafone Group, Rolls-Royce and Centrica in the UK. We believe that our companies and stakeholders benefit from a strong, competitive Europe in which the UK plays a vital role.
Our continent has benefited immeasurably from our European Union to which the UK, as a core member for over 40 years, has made an enormous contribution. Since its inception, the European Union has been a force for positive change – economically, socially, in terms of security, and in terms of the quality of life. However, the European Union certainly needs to be improved. The work is not finished in addressing the challenges the European Union faces. These challenges are better addressed when the people and the nations of Europe cooperate together.
Our joint challenge will be now to forge new partnerships and to further growth opportunities so that both regions continue to thrive."
'Nuff said!
23rd Aug 2016 13:16:02
Thanks for voting!
If the vote went the other way you would not want another vote you should have respect for democracy and give it time
Informed democrat Original Poster
22nd Aug 2016 13:21:40
Thanks for voting!

Yes, that is of course correct but let's just reflect on that comment in some more detail ...

The Referendum Act gave no legal status to the referendum ( unlike in previous cases where the legislation granted legal status to the result ) which means that the referendum vote had no legal status. Not did Act specify what a majority actually meant: with a relativley narrow majority in the aggregate and with 2 of the 4 nations of the UK voting one way and the other 2 nations voting the other, it is even less clear what the position really is. The UK's democracy is based on the Parliamentary model where the Sovereignty of Parliament must prevail. That generally means therefore that to be democratic a proper democratic debate in both the Commons and the Lords is required, followed by an Act of Parliament. That is the democratic process. It is far from clear that the Goverment has the democratic authority to circumvent this democratic process by triggering Article 50 without such a democratic debate and Act of Parliament. This is set-out well by a number of people that understand these things far better than you and me. To help, I've attached a link which explains all this in more detail -


Then we also have the argument that if people were mis-led ( by whichever side ) then the result of the advisory referendum ( the one that has no legal status ) should in any event be subject to proper scrutiny otherwise it makes a mockery of the democratic process ( assuming that the process is followed in the first place that is). There is some informative stuff to be found on this from the Treasury Select Committee's comments and report in this area: I have no issue with the professionalism or integrity of its output. Personally, irrespective of results and outcomes and issues that are under consideration, I believe all politicians of whatever persuasion should be held accountable - that sounds like a proper democracy to me. To help protect our democracy from abuse the UK system has various in-built checks and safeguards, not least an independent judiciary and its system of appeal, and the rule of law.

I believe some of the key democratic issues relating to the referendum will come to fore later this year in the High Court and in the Supreme Court, and elsewhere. However it is reasurring to hear that the democratic process lives on - informed democracy in action - essential for the preservation of our democratic system, complicated as that may initially appear.
16th Aug 2016 20:28:01 (Last activity: 16th Aug 2016 21:56:55)
Thanks for voting!
I am pretty sure that if the vote had been for us to stay in europe the vast majority of "out" voters would have accepted it in good faith and got on with their lives. They would have accepted the decision of the refererendum.

Not so the "in" voters. They believe that they are entitled to run this country and their vote is the only one that counts. All others don't understand, only them. They continually bicker that the vote went against them and are continually trying to either get a re-run or water down what "out" means.

Let me just explain. OUT MEANS OUT not half out. "out" voters didn't vote for that and will strongly resist any attempt to water down. For myself I don't mind if I am a little poorer for a few years until we sort out our trade agreements etc. It is worth it if it meens we dont have unlimited immigration for ever and ever. Millions and millions without end.

What the "in" interlectuals don't realise is that at last the little man has had his say and he says "OUT" so get used to it.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 16th Aug 2016 21:56:55
Not quite sure what the shouting is supposed to achieve, but anyway let's just run over some of the issues again.

Firstly the Referendum Act ( that's the bit under our Parliamentary democracy ) makes it clear that the result of the referendum has no legal standing and secondly it does not in any event define what a conclusive majority under the advisory referendum looks like. Secondly, it is the United Kingdom that is a member of the EU and there are 4 nations that make-up the UK. So that means there is a non-binding referendum ( that does not define what a conclusive advisory majority looks like) where 2 of the 4 nations voted on way and 2 of the 4 nations voted the other way. Even on a simplistic aggregate basis, that all equates to 51 people in a room voting for one thing and 49 people voting for something else: it is immaterial which way round the 51 to 49 figures and 2 to 4 nations votes sit.

Then we have the somewhat substantial ( but perhaps tedious matter for you) that it is far from clear whether the UK goverment has the authority to trigger Article 50 without a debate proper debate in both the House of Commons and the Lords and followed by an Act of Parliament. This is a rather serious matter under a Parliamentary democratic system. Further Article 50 makes it clear that the UK ( or any other member ) has to follow its proper constitutional process to be able to legitmately trigger Article 50 and be bound by it. Tad on the important side then for all parties. Thus given its importance the matter will be put to the Supreme Court in October. Given your comments, and in the spirit of informed democratic process, perhaps you should find some way to air your views in the Supreme Court later this month. I am afraid I do not know if that would be possible and if it is what sort of process you would need to follow to do that. All part and parcel of our parliamentry democracatic process, and the protections of having an independent judiciary, following the rule of law and the need to deliver a non-divisive outcome that is in the national interest. Much better than shouting.
16th Aug 2016 15:30:49 (Last activity: 16th Aug 2016 18:50:50)
Thanks for voting!
its been just two months since the vote and we should be patient and wait for the benefits since we were in we spent a lot of money out bailing out other countries from the mess they got in since being in the Eu if any company ran their business like the E U they would not last for long. Show respect for the people who gave their lives in the war for this country and stay out, there were a democratic vote let it stand the M E Ps want it so we can keep them.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 16th Aug 2016 18:50:50

I think it best to finally draw a line under this line. I have on 2 occasions explained that the UK does not fund bail outs to the Eurozone countries such as Greece, Portugal and Spain - this is because the bail out come from the European Central Bank and the UK does not contribute to the ECB because it is not in the Eurozone. That is a fact so I cannot add anything more. Please also remember that the huge cost of bail outs came from UK taxpayers to bail out UK banks and the UK banks managed to mess that one up all by themselves with no additional help from the EU. It was down to the UK. Please also realise that the UK economy does not score terribly well in many key areas when compared to other comparable EU states - for example the UK's productivity is woefully poor when compared to the likes of Germany, Holland, the Nordics and dare I say it France. This has nothing whatsoever to do with bail outs or a EU conspiracy - the sad fact is the we simply do not stack-up in key areas and need to get our act together. The aforementioned countries all have to abide by the same rules and in comparison to the UK have paid a lot more into the EU's general pot, not to mention contributions to the ECB for those that are in the Euro. Lastly, the UK has the worst current account deficit since 1948 - this has to be financed from inflows of overseas money into the UK to support the UK, not the other way round. Around half of all that required support comes from mainland Europe. Blaming the EU for all the UK's shortcomings is very easy to do but regrettably has little to do with the economic facts. I wish it did as if it were the case the solution would be relatively easy.
11th Aug 2016 11:11:06 (Last activity: 11th Aug 2016 17:08:03)
Thanks for voting!
Hello Informed Democrat,
I’ve read through your arguments with interest and I understand your spirited defence but I think you’ve been a little unfair to some of the other members making their points. Keith WL mentioned that both sides were guilty of mis-selling their arguments, which you dismissed saying Osborne’s consisted of projections which were therefore not verifiable. But Osborne’s threats did not consist merely of projections. In a radio 4 interview prior to the referendum his exact words were “There would HAVE to be tax increases and cuts in public spending to fill the black hole”. That statement was no vague projection, it was a clear threat (and not one based on fact). If you are going to accuse one side of mis-selling you cannot avoid such comments made by the other just to suit your argument.
Secondly, when responding to Irene 88 you claim that in the short term stock market performance is not an indication of the strength of the economy, which is a valid point. But you then go on to say looking at currencies over a similar term is an accurate measure, which is nonsense. If you followed the currencies around the time of the referendum (which I did) you would have noticed that sterling rose prior to the vote before immediately “falling off a cliff” afterwards. These movements did not occur because the economy grew significantly in a few days and then dramatically shrunk overnight. It was all (and largely still is) down to speculation. Such speculation is not unusual. In the run up to the 2010 general election sterling fell over 5% before the election and then rose 7.5% after the result. These examples not only show how currency movements are often based on speculation but also how often such speculation can be wrong.
So, with regards to your question, if you believe we were we mis-sold a Brexit, if balanced, you should believe if we had voted remain we would have been mis-sold that as well. But, I wouldn’t expect any different, as it is a politician’s job to slant any argument in their favour and if they go too far, as Osborne did, they usually get found out. And, personally, given that studies have revealed the way in which people vote in other elections, I believe it made less difference to the result than you may think. Many people would have been set in their ways because of their allegiance or total opposition to a particular party or a specific politician (I know of people who voted to leave just to give Cameron a kick in the teeth). Others would have voted on a single issue, such as immigration. Many others again would have ignored the media and found the information for themselves on the issues which mattered to them (a category which includes me and, I presume yourself). I believe the % that based their vote wholly upon the propaganda spouted by both sides would not have been significant enough to avoid the nation remaining roughly split on this issue.
Finally, I think if you should be expressing your unhappiness at anybody, it should be David Cameron rather than those expressing their democratic right to have a different view to you. It was Cameron, as prime minister, who constructed the terms of the referendum with which you disagreed so strongly. It was Cameron who said a simple majority was required and it was Cameron who said the referendum was for the whole of the UK regardless of the votes in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But, you should also ask why these issues were not vigorously debated before the vote. Perhaps, it’s because these issues were unimportant to the Remain campaign when they complacently thought they would win, and only now matter that they lost. If that scenario is the case, that’s not democracy, that’s hypocrisy.
Apologies for the long post but there was a lot to cover.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 11th Aug 2016 13:30:13
Hello Anf1408

Couple of points which I hope helps to clarify some matters for you: as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote the UK lost its highly value triple AAA credit rating. This is not good for anyone in the UK, just as it is not good if you have your personal credit rating significantly downgraded. Please compare the effects that the financial crisis had on the UK's credit rating and you can see that the Brexit vote does not fare well on the seismic chart. Short term speculation is not the driver - it is the fundamental shift in the economic positioning of the UK economy relative to its pre-Brexit position that is the driver here. Independent rating agencies recognized that the Brexit had unleashed a series of negative, longer-term factors and that the UK's budgetary position would deteriorate; and that the economy will to a lesser or greater degree slow. That means the public finances deteriorate and the UK is henceforth less well placed to service its debts - that means the market dictates the value of the currency ahs to fall. Speculation is a consequence of the substantial decline in the UK's economic and financial position, not the cause, although in the very short-term speculative money can exacerbate market movements. The sheer size of the currency markets mean that speculators ( and central banks ) cannot buck the trend or dictate the direction of travel - that is driven by changes in the economic fundamentals. People often like to try and blame speculators when they find it convenient to do so.

The first stage in the severity of the consequences of the Breixt vote have now manifested as a further and substantial round of QE ( money printing ): that serves to further depress the currency ( more money = lower prices, same as it does for potato's, sprouts or beans) and lower interest rates. This has come about as a direct consequence of the Brexit vote, pretty much as predicted. It means the cost of imports rise and interest rates move to negative territory. QE can also serve to artificially inflate the value of paper assets, such as shares and bonds, whose value becomes even more disconnected with the state of the real economy. History has examples of where this can end, including the Japanese imperial military spending boom of the 1930's and subsequent invasions of Korea. The Japanese chancellor tried to turn the taps off but he was hacked to death with samurai swords because his generals had developed at taste for it. Anyhow, the point is that QE is not indicative of a healthy state of affairs.

I agree that Mr. Cameron and his crew should be in the dock for this mess, along with others.

The Referendum Act did not make the result of the referendum constitutionally binding -it is merely advisory. Nor was the definition of what constituted an advisory majority defined. This is important and cannot be disregarded, irrespective of which way the vote went - that is not the point. Would 50.1 % to 49.9% amount to a decisive majority ? The question is by definition unanswerable because the definition what of constitutes a significant majority in this context was never been defined in the first place. If you disagree please can you find me the section in the Referendum Act that does this as I may have missed-it ? In the spirit of informed democracy I must always open to evidentially based counter views.

The broader issue of the constitutional validity of the Government's alleged authority to trigger Article 50 will, I believe, be examined in the Supreme Court later this year. That is because their is a strong body of evidence that supports the view that as a matter of law a proper debate in both the Commons and the Lords and Act of Parliament is required to make the triggering of Article 50 constitutionally valid. Personally, I have always been ( and remain ) a strong supporter of the importance and need for proper legal proper legal process and Parliamentary Democracy - I always feel it is a far sounder system that rule by populist opinion, particularly on complicated matters of the national interest. it's called a democracy.
Response from anf1408 made on 11th Aug 2016 15:22:45
Hi again,
Thanks for your response, but I don't feel you've really addressed my main points satisfactorily, which were:

1) In his radio interview George Osborne made very specific threats regarding extremely severe tax rises and spending cuts. He did not forecast this may happen, he said he would have to impose them in an emergency budget. Your comments that it was only those who supported Brexit who mis-sold their argument are therefore not valid.
2) Your comments regarding currency make no sense when placed in the context of what actually happened. As I said, currency did not just fall around the time of the referendum, it also gained value. In the days leading up to the referendum the pound rose sharply. There were no economic reasons for such a steeply sharp rise over such a short space of time. It was down to 'speculation' of a vote to remain. Immediately, after the outcome became clear markets fell sharply, by approximately 10% overnight. Again this was not down to economic data, it was down to speculation about what would follow the vote. One of the first consequences, the reality of the loss of our Triple A rating came after these movements and exacerbated earlier falls, not the other way round. You say speculation is a consequence of economic decline. I don't understand how you can speculate on economic decline, or anything, after it has happened. That would be a bit like trying to bet on a horse after the race has finished.

As I said in my original post, my main issue with your arguments are that I just felt you were being a little unfair by not providing a proper answer to those who'd posted on these points. I get your views on the economic consequences of Brexit (and perhaps that is a debate for another thread), but your original question was on whether we were mis-sold Brexit, not on its consequences. Once again, based on the above I don't believe some of us were because our vote was not necessarily totally influenced by what the politicians said. However, to reiterate, if I was to accept your view that we were, we were also mis-sold the argument to remain.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 11th Aug 2016 17:08:03
Hello again

When I have time I will pick-up your points again in more detail. But as regards the fall in Sterling please look at the charts and the commentary around this and your will see that the correlation is correct and exactly as described. You cannot disregard the AAA downgrading as this is the key measure of creditworthiness. QE followed due to Brexit as per my explanation and is beyond dispute.

As to Mr Osborne then I am not defending him - however, it is a matter of degree. As it happens his comments were however backed by reasoned analysis even if they were delivered in a dogmatic manner. If you doubt the difference between this and much if the Leave commentary, then please refer to the Treasury Select Committee report on the Leave campaign and the spurious claims that were made in key areas, all of which can relatively easily be refuted. I can also dig-out legal opinion on the matter if you are still skeptical of the difference in magnitude between the two camps. The other very informative piece comes from a Liverpool University Professor's analysis which provides objective and unbiased evidence of the facts - he doesn't have an axe to grind and is far better informed than either you or me.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.
11th Aug 2016 08:07:14 (Last activity: 11th Aug 2016 16:51:27)
Thanks for voting!
Truth about the EU referendum was that no one knew what the consequences of the voting would be. The other truth was and is that most brits were fed up losing control of their country to nameless faceless and probably corrupt bureaucrats in another country.
Response from Wilf made on 11th Aug 2016 14:31:45
The crazy thing is we are ruled by faceless bureaucrats in the Uk anyway. Who knows the name of the top civil servants-who cares? If you vote Labour you are being ruled by the Tories for years and vv. Its all a bit of a farce really. the only thing that matters is we live in a free society where we are able to express any of our here on Silversurfers.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 11th Aug 2016 16:51:27
We deserve better and we must press for better. The wretched referendum has just served to divide and fuel a create civil war mentality culture and that cannot be good for anyone other than the Brexit warlords and others, whatever camp they inhabit. Ironically the more people I speak with the more it seems that there is much consensus on the problems but the differences lie in the proposed solutions. I fear the evidence is that the Brexit solution will end up as even worse ( and far riskier ) than the original problem. Accelerated evolution not revolution would be far better.
10th Aug 2016 22:05:33 (Last activity: 11th Aug 2016 08:59:18)
Thanks for voting!
The people have spoken, and just because our elites are dragging their feet on the issue of triggering our exit does not mean that there should be any attempt to sabotage Brexit.
Do you always ask such petty questions following a general election? Oh dear, I don't like the result, let's vote again until I'm happy!
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 11th Aug 2016 08:59:18 let's reflect on that a little...advisory, inconclusive referendum result were 2 out of 4 of the Nation vote Remain and whereby the aggregate vote is marginal ( 51 people in the room vote one way and the other 49 vote the other) doesn't sound like a democratic mandate for anything other than an unconstitutional mess. Shame that you seem to define that in terms of a petty minded question or sulk. That's not the stuff of informed democracy is it, which may explain why the matter will in the first instance be heard in the Supreme Court later this year. Perhaps you should attend to explain why you think the matter is petty? I am sure the judges would be delighted to listen to your informed evidenced and we'll argued case. Why not put the date in your diary?
Informed democrat Original Poster
11th Aug 2016 08:43:06
Thanks for voting!
If the truth was that voters didn't have any meaningful insight into what the implications of a Leave vote was going to be then the logical conclusion was that it was an act of gross irresponsibility to have had a referendum in the first place. That is why we have ( had) a Parliamentary democracy in the first place. As regards being told what to do by corrupt ( or is it inept) politicians, then I don't think that is exclusively an EU issue. Whatever the view the outcome of the ( advisory, divisive and inconclusive) referendum vote is now becoming pretty clear as a matter of informed fact. I will pick that one-up later with examples to illustrate the facts.
Informed democrat Original Poster
10th Aug 2016 21:42:20 (Last activity: 10th Aug 2016 22:57:19)
Thanks for voting!
Hello Keith

Probably best not to rely on PGW as a character reference given his rather questionable life in Vichy France where he had a comfortable life serving the Reich's propoganda machine during WW2.

I will send you some links to a few unbiased informate sites that will give you to access some more detailed informed facts to help you reflect on why voters were badly mis-sold the Brexit. I'll also send you some links to reliable material that will help you better understand the economic facts and reality of how the EU actually operates and the options that the UK has in all this mess. I also hasten to add that I am far from an EU devotee and I do not think the Euro was a sensible proposition, but that largely misses the point. And let's not overplay the virtues of the UK democratic system relative to other democratic EU states - we have an unelected House of Lords and the first past the post system hardly supports broad consensus politics. In fact the UK system is in many ways out-of-date when compared to many other modern democratic models - plenty of informed stuff available from the Constitutional Reform Society on that subject - so less preachng on that from the Brexiteers would be a good start.

Lord Sugar's analogy with the Board Room ( sulks) was a good one - I added the extra bit for good measure but it makes the reasonably well, even though you may not like the style.
Response from KEITH_WL made on 10th Aug 2016 22:57:19
I ask again - WHO IS PGW?

An effect of emotive language (and it's irrelevant whether I personally like it or not) is that if someone says "leaving the boardroom ( like a sulky adolescent)" or one of those other expressions you employ so readily, then it's hard to avoid reading it as "you're behaving like a sulky adolescent" and indeed many people would understand it that way.

Why am I attempting to advise you on how to present your views more convincingly? Well, it would help me to focus on the issues and your real arguments.

At present you seem very on-sided in your presentation. E.g. "why voters were badly mis-sold the Brexit". And were the Remainers squeaky clean?

10th Aug 2016 15:15:04 (Last activity: 10th Aug 2016 21:21:59)
Thanks for voting!
Yes I think politicians should be brought to account because lie's were told for and against it,i knew what I wanted to vote for,there was a lot of people that didn't know what to do because the public were not being told the truth.
Response from Informed democrat Original Poster made on 10th Aug 2016 17:07:21
Hello jc1

Absolutely agree. We should all simply demand better.

If bankers are told to behave responsibly and tell the truth, then why should we expect less from our politicians, irrespective of the arguments or political persuasion. This is especially important for matters that affect the national interest, such as the Referendum. If you are mis-sold a pension or a car or anything else for the matter, then you can cancel the contract as a matter of course and / or claim compensation for losses.

I am truly amazed people still work on the basis that politicians can just lie because that's what politicians do. If they lost their parliamentary privilege when they can be shown to have mis-led or simply lied on matters of the national interest, then the politicos and their cronies would no longer be able to hide and walk away from the mess they created. Beats me. More like feudalism than a modern democracy - it needs to be addressed.
Response from jc1 made on 10th Aug 2016 17:18:59
It was the same with the politicians expenses they fiddled them if the man in the street started to fiddle his expenses and was found out he would be out of a job.What happened with the politicians nothing not even a slap on the wrist i don't know how some of them sleep at night.
Response from nape made on 10th Aug 2016 21:21:59
the truth is we have bailed out countries in the E U some of them more then once and to show respect for the people that gave there lives for this country, the M E Ps wanted it more then anyone else .
Page 1 of 2

Community Terms & Conditions

Content standards

These content standards apply to any and all material which you contribute to our site (contributions), and to any interactive services associated with it.

You must comply with the spirit of the following standards as well as the letter. The standards apply to each part of any contribution as well as to its whole.

Contributions must:

be accurate (where they state facts); be genuinely held (where they state opinions); and comply with applicable law in the UK and in any country from which they are posted.

Contributions must not:

contain any material which is defamatory of any person; or contain any material which is obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory; or promote sexually explicit material; or promote violence; promote discrimination based on race, sex, religion, nationality, disability, sexual orientation or age; or infringe any copyright, database right or trade mark of any other person; or be likely to deceive any person; or be made in breach of any legal duty owed to a third party, such as a contractual duty or a duty of confidence; or promote any illegal activity; or be threatening, abuse or invade another’s privacy, or cause annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety; or be likely to harass, upset, embarrass, alarm or annoy any other person; or be used to impersonate any person, or to misrepresent your identity or affiliation with any person; or give the impression that they emanate from us, if this is not the case; or advocate, promote or assist any unlawful act such as (by way of example only) copyright infringement or computer misuse.

Nurturing a safe environment

Our Silversurfers community is designed to foster friendships, based on trust, honesty, integrity and loyalty and is underpinned by these values.

We don't tolerate swearing, and reserve the right to remove any posts which we feel may offend others... let's keep it friendly!