I think there was a bit of a sense of hitting out at the government just because it felt good to do so.
But presumably with the assumption that whatever the outcome, the government wouldn't change anything?
What would be the point in "hitting out" at the government to change things in a way you don't really want them to be changed?
"Let's pretend I'm mad about this thing that I'm not, and you pretend to change it, but don't".
The government of the UK doesn't really have to do anything. The referendum was not binding. All they have to do is ignore the results, perhaps with a statement about such a tiny majority asking for major changes in the makeup of the country. I think at this point they would probably have a majority onside.
Had they voted remain, you can be damned sure it would have been “binding.” And anyone calling for another vote would have been shouted down.
The government of the UK doesn't really have to do anything. The referendum was not binding. All they have to do is ignore the results, perhaps with a statement about such a tiny majority asking for major changes in the makeup of the country. I think at this point they would probably have a majority onside.
Had they voted remain, you can be damned sure it would have been “binding.” And anyone calling for another vote would have been shouted down.
If they had voted remain they would have voted mostly for the status quo so there would be little reason to have another vote. But the outcome of Brexit is still very much up in the air. It is still unknown what Brexit negotiations will deliver for the UK but it is very different from the panacea the pro-Brexit side claimed during the referendum. Now it looks like the UK will have to pay $70 billion dollars to the EU just to get the negotiations underway! The pro-Brexit side never mentioned that during the referendum. Instead they said that the UK would have billions of pounds more for their healthcare system every year with no strings attached. The referendum was won on lies so the people of the UK should get a chance to vote on something they actually have sufficient information about. The people of the UK should have the right to vote on the agreement made with the EU, if the EU would be kind enough to go along with such a vote. The people of the UK had no idea their government would be in such a weak negotiating position with the EU when they voted to leave. They were even told that it was the EU that was in the weak position!
From Mr. Magoo:
But presumably with the assumption that whatever the outcome, the government wouldn't change anything?
It was, after all, non-binding. People might very well have felt that nothing would happen but a bit of bargaining over existing terms.
From Josh:
And anyone calling for another vote would have been shouted down.
And I am not suggesting another vote.
It was, after all, non-binding. People might very well have felt that nothing would happen but a bit of bargaining over existing terms.
"I'm going to vote in support of this thing I don't actually want, for reasons that make no sense, secure in the knowledge that no matter how many of us who don't want it vote for it, the government, in its wisdom, isn't obligated to do it".
Well, I guess they know better now.
I would say once the future becomes more clear that a case could be made that the popular sentiment would have changed. Of course the parameters have changed as well. Originally it was chaos (Brexit) versus stablity (status quo). Now it is chaos vs chaos as the status quo no longer exists. Europe has accepted Brexit and would not likely accept a simple reset to the old arrangements - all the goofy rules to preserve micro industries in England would be open for discussion. In that climate I think it may be hard to demonstrate the overwhelming public desire for rejoining the union.
Unless you can blame it on a Russians.
The referendum was won on lies so the people of the UK should get a chance to vote on something they actually have sufficient information about.
They got a chance to vote on the people that you say lied to them, didn't they?
How'd that go? A stern rebuke? The liars banished to the political wilderness for a generation or two?
Well, in fact the Tories couldn't even achieve a majority government when it was widely believed Labour was going to tank because of their 'Stay' position. So yes, the voters did have a say, and it wasn't kind to the Conservatives.
Mr. Magoo said:
"I'm going to vote in support of this thing I don't actually want, for reasons that make no sense, secure in the knowledge that no matter how many of us who don't want it vote for it, the government, in its wisdom, isn't obligated to do it".
Are you trying to convince me that voters always make rational choices? In fact it is entirely possible that a number of voters voted for 'Leave' simply because they didn't like the government, and felt the government was opposed to 'leaving'. And as I'll point out again, it wouldn't have taken very many voters to change their minds to change the outcome.
The difference between the 'stay' and 'leave' was only 3.8% of the overall vote. Which means that a 2% change in the overall vote from 'leave' to 'stay' would have changed the outcome.
Could that many voters have changed their minds if they knew the outcome was binding. I think it's at least possible.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump weighs in on the Muslim 'problem' in the UK. After catching some negative reaction to his re-tweeting some video from an extreme right-wing group in the UK, including a rebuke from Theresa May's office. Courtesy CBC:
British Prime Minister Theresa May's spokesperson James Slack said Trump was wrong to share Fransen's anti-Muslim videos. He said Britain First seeks to divide communities through its use of "hateful narratives which peddle lies and stoke tensions."
He added: "It is wrong for the president to have done this."
There was no way Trump was going to take that lying down, so he had to answer:
Further from CBC:
U.S. President Donald Trump fired back at British Prime Minister Theresa May over her criticism of his retweeting of anti-Muslim videos, saying she should focus on terrorism in Britain.
"Theresa @theresamay, don't focus on me, focus on the destructive Radical Islamic Terrorism that is taking place within the United Kingdom. We are doing just fine," Trump tweeted.
You know, it's one thing when Trump goes off on the nominal 'enemies' of the USA. It is something else when he slaps down their friends. In fact the UK may be their only friend. So yeah, Donald, tell'em what a bunch of idiots they are. That may help at some point in the future when you'd like them to come along on another 'Iraq' ride maybe.
Pogo wrote:
Europe has accepted Brexit and would not likely accept a simple reset to the old arrangements - all the goofy rules to preserve micro industries in England would be open for discussion.
Plus, the EU is not gonna wanna set a precedent by which other nations can hold their own -EXIT referenda in order to mollify the raving populist elements of their political culture, and then, in the event of a Leave vote, turn around and say to Brussels "Heh heh, well, the people didn't really understand the issues, couldn't see through all the lies and propaganda, y'know, so how about you give us a soft landing, or better yet, just pretend the whole thing didn't really happen?"
From voice of the damned:
...or better yet, just pretend the whole thing didn't really happen?"
This is a shrewd observation, and suggests something that I didn't even think of. That is, the position of the EU should the UK decide to just forget the whole thing. I suspect VOTD is right that the EU's attitude might be a bit more grumpy than the attitude of UK voters.
'Can't we all just be friends...again', might not cut it.
Well, in fact the Tories couldn't even achieve a majority government when it was widely believed Labour was going to tank because of their 'Stay' position. So yes, the voters did have a say, and it wasn't kind to the Conservatives.
It wasn't exactly a bare-assed spanking, either. The Cons are still in power, just with a little less.
Are you trying to convince me that voters always make rational choices?
I'm sure they don't. But if we don't assume they will, and expect them to, then what point could there ever be in discussing elections?
Could that many voters have changed their minds if they knew the outcome was binding. I think it's at least possible.
That still leaves us with the curious matter of that same number of voters who, presumably, voted for something they didn't really want on the inexplicable grounds that if the government isn't statutorily obligated to do it, everyone can rest assured that they won't do it, regardless of the outcome of the vote.
You're correct that voters don't have to make sense on anyone's terms but their own, but that still seems a strange gamble, and I'd still love to know what those voters were thinking.
Well, it wasn't exactly a bare-assed spanking for them either.
From Mr. Magoo:
The Cons are still in power...
That's not exactly true. the Conservatives are sharing power with the Democratic Unionist Party, who have agreed to support the Tories on a case by case basis.
If they had voted remain they would have voted mostly for the status quo so there would be little reason to have another vote.
Why is a narrow vote for the status quo more legitimate than a narrow vote for change? Isn't that totally contrary to the entire philosophy of activism?
Hell, if it has to be one or the other, I would sooner argue the opposite. It takes no courage to keep things the same and a lot of courage to want to change them. If half the population, +- 3%, thinks things are bad enough that they want a change despite the inherent risks, then I'm going to go ahead and say that change is important.
The allegations of Russian "hacking" of elections aren't, as they sound, allegations of Russians hijacking voting machines and submitting false results. They're allegations of Russia publishing legitimate but embarrassing private emails to shift voter perception, or of Russia publishing outright fabrications that those naive voters believed, but should have (in the minds of Clinton/Cameron) been prevented from reading.Personally, I don't believe any politician has a right to determine the information level of the electorate, or that either voters being uninformed of something that'd make them pro-your side or being informed of something (even something false) that'd make them anti-your side makes an election "illegitimate". Once that door's open, it's hard to consider [i]any[/i] election legitimate.
This is an important distinction, nice analysis.
If they had voted remain they would have voted mostly for the status quo so there would be little reason to have another vote.
Why is a narrow vote for the status quo more legitimate than a narrow vote for change? Isn't that totally contrary to the entire philosophy of activism?
Hell, if it has to be one or the other, I would sooner argue the opposite. It takes no courage to keep things the same and a lot of courage to want to change them. If half the population, +- 3%, thinks things are bad enough that they want a change despite the inherent risks, then I'm going to go ahead and say that change is important.
In the case of Brexit, the difference is that the vote for change has been delegitimized because what the leave side said to the voters about what the change would be like has turned out to be untrue.
Brexit climbdown is not what leaving the EU was meant to look like; The Guardian; December 1, 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/dec/01/the-brexit-climbdown-is-fa...
As the scale of the Brexit climbdown takes shape this weekend, one thing is already becoming clear: this wasn’t what leaving the EU was meant to look like. Ahead of Monday’s crunch meeting between Theresa May and commission president, Jean Claude-Juncker, the comparison between what is on the table in Brussels and what British voters were promised is striking.
The first disappointment is that the UK government is not even talking about the things it really wants yet. The concessions Britain is being pressed to finalise – on money, regulation and legal independence – are simply to begin the process of discussing a trade deal. The same Brexit enthusiasts who once insisted it would be ours for the taking now argue the cost is so high we need to steel ourselves for living without it.
The UK voters were also not told that this could be possible:
Brussels may include 'punishment clause' in post-Brexit trade deal; The Guardian; December 1, 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/01/brussels-punishment-cla...
The EU is exploring the inclusion of a “punishment clause” in any future trade deal with the UK to allow Brussels to slap tariffs on key British exports to the bloc if the UK government seeks to gain a commercial advantage by lowering regulatory standards.
In a move that would torpedo the post-Brexit plans of the British cabinet’s key Brexiters, any significant attempts by Whitehall to lower regulatory costs to British businesses in one part of the economy could be met by tariffs from Brussels on another.
In the case of Brexit, the difference is that the vote for change has been delegitimized because what the leave side said to the voters about what the change would be like has turned out to be untrue.
Well.
That's certainly a first for politics.
I trust this will be the first and last time that a party or candidate exaggerates the positive side of what they propose.
The UK voters were also not told that this could be possible
Were they assured that it would be IMpossible?
Because I don't see how a UK politician or party can be held responsible for the choices of another country.
I'd bet that if we in Canada decided to toss NAFTA out the window, there could be some thorns among the roses then too. If the U.S. decided to hike the tariff on maple syrup, would we get a total "do over" as well?
UK voters would HAVE to have known that Brussels would not take kindly to a Leave vote, even if they didn't know the exact specifics of what the repercussions would be. Leaving a trading bloc generally means that you might have to endure more tariffs from that bloc
And anyway, how do you justify appealing to the EU for a do-over, when your argument depends on the EU's current position being so unfair? The EU likely thinks that their position is completely reasonable, and will not likely have much sympathy for any British view of themselves as being hard done-by.
UK voters would HAVE to have known that Brussels would not take kindly to a Leave vote, even if they didn't know the exact specifics of what the repercussions would be.
Whether they knew it or not, it's unlikely that the party or candidate proposing something is going to also provide a doomsday scenario. No politico ever starts their speech with "Of course this will have a negative impact on the GDP, and thousands will lose their jobs, but it's still a great idea...".
Instead we get similar optimism, balanced by... more optimism.
"A GAI would save us billions in administrative costs!" -- GAI enthusiasts and their supporters in government
"The revenues from legal cannabis will pave our sidewalks with gold!" -- Cannabis activists and their supporters in government
"Free transit will pay for itself, and then some!!!" -- transit proponents and their supporters in government
"Investing in tidal energy now will pay for itself, and also pay for free transit!!" -- Greenpeace types and their supporters in government
Promises are cheap. And vague, aspirational promises even cheaper. We don't get do-overs for that.
I wonder what the people who are in favour of a vote on the final deal think would happen. The UK's already triggered the departure process. If Brits vote against the exit deal, it doesn't give the UK any more leverage in the negotiating process. It just means they leave with no deal.
If Brits vote against the exit deal, it doesn't give the UK any more leverage in the negotiating process. It just means they leave with no deal.
Ya, it's hard to see how putting a complex diplomatic/trade agreement to a popular "yes or no" vote could help, at least if the result is "no" and, as you say, there's no backup plan.
Plus, it would seem to me pretty likely that "no" would triumph.
There are absolutely going to be costs (in exchange for the supposed new benefits, like no more foreigners, and "Britain for the British" and not bending the knee to Continentals and other evidently important things).
Those who originally voted "Leave" are going to resent their newfound independence and self-reliance coming with a pricetag. And those who originally voted "Stay" are understandably not going to want to pay a price for what they don't want in the first place (not to mention the Hail Mary hope that if everything can be fusterclucked in every way possible, maybe everything will magically undo itself).
Tony Blair confirms he is working to reverse Brexit; The Guardian, December 2, 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/03/tony-blair-confirms-he-...
Former PM argues claims made by leave campaign now clearly untrue and so British voters deserve second referendum
Tony Blair has confirmed that he is trying to reverse Brexit, arguing that voters deserve a second referendum because the “£350m per week for the NHS” promise has now been exposed as untrue.
In an interview with the BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend on Sunday, the former prime minister said that what was happening to the “crumbling” NHS was a “national tragedy” and that it was now “very clear” that the Vote Leave promise about Brexit leading to higher NHS spending would not be honoured.
“When the facts change, I think people are entitled to change their mind,” said Blair, who has always been a strong opponent of Brexit but who has rarely been so explicit about being on a personal mission to stop it happening.
Asked if his purpose in relation to Brexit was to reverse it, Blair replied: “Yes, exactly so.”
I guess that the Brits who voted "leave" didn't like the EU in the first place. Is the EU being punitive in exit talks going to endear those voters back in another vote? Even if it scares enough back into the fold, would anyone be under any illusions about what the mutual sentiment is going forward?
It's like if a person in an argument with their spouse threatens divorce, and their spouse responds with "if we divorce, I'll claim SAID and you'll never see our house or kids again." That person might reconsider the divorce, but things will never be the same going forward. Any illusion of autonomy is gone and the resentment will only continue to grow.
I guess that the Brits who voted "leave" didn't like the EU in the first place. Is the EU being punitive in exit talks going to endear those voters back in another vote? Even if it scares enough back into the fold, would anyone be under any illusions about what the mutual sentiment is going forward?
It's like if a person in an argument with their spouse threatens divorce, and their spouse responds with "if we divorce, I'll claim SAID and you'll never see our house or kids again." That person might reconsider the divorce, but things will never be the same going forward. Any illusion of autonomy is gone and the resentment will only continue to grow.
According to the article it now seems that a clear majority of people in the U.K. would like to stay in the EU.
"The news that Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell have taken the field and the command of the campaign to reverse Brexit sounds the death knell for the EU cause in Britain. Good riddance to them all."
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/937417103770112002
I still say Brexit is going to hinge on Ireland and Ulster.
Apparently some sort of deal has been struck:
The British government appears to have bowed to the Republic of Ireland’s demand that Northern Ireland will stay aligned with key EU laws and regulations after Brexit so as to ensure that a hard border does not return to the island.
...Ireland’s deputy prime minister, Simon Coveney, told RTE News that Ireland had been reassured that there would be no re-emergence of a hard border. “Certainly the indications we have is that we are in a much better place than we have been in Brexit negotiations to date,” Coveney said. “We have now a language that gives us the safeguards we need.”
However, the DUP is not on board with this, so who knows what will happen
Arlene Foster, the leader of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists, reiterated her party’s stance that the province must leave the EU on the same terms as the rest of the the UK.
...Sammy Wilson, the MP for East Antrim, stressed that he and the other nine DUP MPs in Westminster “had the leverage” to block an unacceptable deal given Theresa May’s dependence on the party for a working majority in the Commons.
And, of course, others were more than willing to join the 'special agreement' category.
Nicola Sturgeon:
If one part of UK can retain regulatory alignment with EU and effectively stay in the single market (which is the right solution for Northern Ireland) there is surely no good practical reason why others can’t.
Mayor of London:
Huge ramifications for London if Theresa May has conceded that it's possible for part of the UK to remain within the single market & customs union after Brexit. Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and a similar deal here could protect tens of thousands of jobs.
Fun and games in populist politics.
Mayor of London:
Huge ramifications for London if Theresa May has conceded that it's possible for part of the UK to remain within the single market & customs union after Brexit. Londoners overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU and a similar deal here could protect tens of thousands of jobs.
I think the mayor might be a little too optimistic in citing Ulster as a precedent for London. The EU is giving special consideration to Ulster likely because the resurrection of the border could lead to the resumption of armed conflict, not because most people in Ulster voted to Remain.
Despite the DUP's stance, there are a number of differences between Ulster and England and Wales. For example, gay marriage is banned in Ulster but legal in England and Wales. Having Ulster remain in the common market with the EU would not break up the UK. It may however break up the minority Tory government in Westminster which depends on DUP support.
It would mean border checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which is a dealbreaker for unionist parties.
From cco:
It would mean border checks between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, which is a dealbreaker for unionist parties.
That is correct. It would only mean moving the border from one side of Northern Ireland to the other side. As the DUP says, they will not accept such an arrangement.
From VOTD:
I think the mayor might be a little too optimistic in citing Ulster as a precedent for London. The EU is giving special consideration to Ulster likely because the resurrection of the border could lead to the resumption of armed conflict, not because most people in Ulster voted to Remain.
Well, yes, the Mayor of London is being optimistic. One of the considerations would simply be that there are limited contact points between England and Northern Ireland. Enforcing a border between those two would be relatively simple. Trying to build and maintain a border between London and the rest of the UK is another thing altogether.
At the same time, I think the Mayor is pointing out that if one can find reasons for special treatment for one place, one could find reasons for special treatment of another place (exactly as Nicole Sturgeon has pointed out).
Is this the beginning of the end of the 'leaving'? Too soon to tell, but it could be.
Whenever the support of some small party is necessary to keep a government from falling, that smaller party certainly gets more than their usual share of influence. But paradoxically, they can only enforce this influence by threatening to withdraw that support, resulting in the government falling, and the small party along with them (and back to their usual share of influence).
Same in B.C. right now. If the Greens want to get shirty about something, they can, but if a non-confidence vote brings the government down, they'll probably go back to their former near-irrelevance.
Tony Blair confirms he is working to reverse Brexit; The Guardian, December 2, 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/03/tony-blair-confirms-he-...
Former PM argues claims made by leave campaign now clearly untrue and so British voters deserve second referendum
Tony Blair has confirmed that he is trying to reverse Brexit, arguing that voters deserve a second referendum because the “£350m per week for the NHS” promise has now been exposed as untrue.
In an interview with the BBC Radio 4’s The World This Weekend on Sunday, the former prime minister said that what was happening to the “crumbling” NHS was a “national tragedy” and that it was now “very clear” that the Vote Leave promise about Brexit leading to higher NHS spending would not be honoured.
“When the facts change, I think people are entitled to change their mind,” said Blair, who has always been a strong opponent of Brexit but who has rarely been so explicit about being on a personal mission to stop it happening.
Asked if his purpose in relation to Brexit was to reverse it, Blair replied: “Yes, exactly so.”
Blair is arguing that someone else’s claims are untrue? There’s a word for that.
"The news that Tony Blair and Alastair Campbell have taken the field and the command of the campaign to reverse Brexit sounds the death knell for the EU cause in Britain. Good riddance to them all."
https://twitter.com/georgegalloway/status/937417103770112002
Agree.
I guess that the Brits who voted "leave" didn't like the EU in the first place. Is the EU being punitive in exit talks going to endear those voters back in another vote? Even if it scares enough back into the fold, would anyone be under any illusions about what the mutual sentiment is going forward?
It's like if a person in an argument with their spouse threatens divorce, and their spouse responds with "if we divorce, I'll claim SAID and you'll never see our house or kids again." That person might reconsider the divorce, but things will never be the same going forward. Any illusion of autonomy is gone and the resentment will only continue to grow.
According to the article it now seems that a clear majority of people in the U.K. would like to stay in the EU.
Poll from Survation the other day had leave ahead 48-44.
Meanwhile, the Irish border stalls the process:
Theresa May's weakness exposed:
Theresa May’s political weakness was brutally exposed to Brussels on Monday as an agreement struck between Britain and the EU to solve the problem of the Irish border...was torpedoed by a last-minute telephone call with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.
...Confidence early on Monday that an agreement was within reach came to nothing when...May was forced to pause discussions to take a call from Arlene Foster.
The unionist leader...told the British prime minister that she could not support Downing Street’s planned commitment to keep Northern Ireland aligned with EU laws.
In London, Tory Brexiters, including Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg, told the Brexit minister Steve Baker, and the prime minister’s chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, that they were also rallying behind the DUP’s stance.
Labour didn't form the government after the last vote, and how lucky they were. They have the same problem the Tories have, that is, the party is split over this issue. If they were in government right now they would be going through the same thing.
I agree that having Blair poke his nose into this could be very damaging, but I doubt it's fatal overall. Overall, people want to remain in the EU, and for every Blair there's a Boris Johnson, so it sort of balances out. It's too bad though, that the UK didn't send Blair to the Hague for trial. That would have kept him occupied.
Here's British politics today, in a nutshell:
- (the UK, a while ago): let's blow up a statue!
- (the plurality of the electorate): Yes, blow that fucker up!
- (the minority of the electorate): No, no, we can't replace that statue!
- (The EU): the statue has been demolished. Now what?
- (UK Tories): we expect an identical statue, for free, from you. We've already promised our supporters...
- (Bush's Poodle): were the people told that when the statue was demolished, there would no longer be a statue? If not, they get a do-over!
- (Ireland): we didn't hate the statue, and we didn't love it either. But we want that statue! No statue, no peace!
- (The rest of the world): I remember when I got really drunk and made some poor choices, but you don't have to pay forever. Just eighteen, twenty years at the most!
From Mr. Magoo:
Here's British politics today, in a nutshell:
Not a bad description, although I would add a bit at the beginning. That is,
"Let's ask the people whether we should blow up the statue, but make their opinion provisional."
I've posted this before, but it really is worth looking at and thinking about. The clear preferences of people by their age...
Half of Britons support a second vote on Brexit, poll finds
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-eu-vote/half-of-britons-suppo...
Support another referendum: 50%
Oppose another referendum: 34%
Don't know: 16%
"Let's ask the people whether we should blow up the statue, but make their opinion provisional."
Provisional on what?
Half of Britons support a second vote on Brexit, poll finds
Half of Britons support unblowing up that statue, poll finds.
Or half of Britons support not blowing up that statue, poll finds.
From Mr. Magoo:
Provisional on what?
On whatever you like. The referendum vote was not binding, so presumably there could be other be considerations that allowed the politicians to not abide by the results. Otherwise they would have said it was binding.
Meanwhile, the Irish border stalls the process:
Theresa May's weakness exposed:
Theresa May’s political weakness was brutally exposed to Brussels on Monday as an agreement struck between Britain and the EU to solve the problem of the Irish border...was torpedoed by a last-minute telephone call with the leader of the Democratic Unionist party.
...Confidence early on Monday that an agreement was within reach came to nothing when...May was forced to pause discussions to take a call from Arlene Foster.
The unionist leader...told the British prime minister that she could not support Downing Street’s planned commitment to keep Northern Ireland aligned with EU laws.
In London, Tory Brexiters, including Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees-Mogg, told the Brexit minister Steve Baker, and the prime minister’s chief of staff, Gavin Barwell, that they were also rallying behind the DUP’s stance.
Labour didn't form the government after the last vote, and how lucky they were. They have the same problem the Tories have, that is, the party is split over this issue. If they were in government right now they would be going through the same thing.
I agree that having Blair poke his nose into this could be very damaging, but I doubt it's fatal overall. Overall, people want to remain in the EU, and for every Blair there's a Boris Johnson, so it sort of balances out. It's too bad though, that the UK didn't send Blair to the Hague for trial. That would have kept him occupied.
Overall, people want to remain the EU? What makes you say that?
