Brexit What Happens Next Thread ---multiple merged threads.

[Kosmin]

3 hours ago, thehowler said:

Here's the rub...

You have to accept a majority wanted out.

The majority who voted wanted to leave, but it wasn't a majority of the electorate. It's 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% didn't vote.

As this was an advisory referendum it seems reasonable to ask whether the voters were representative of the electorate.

What is the preference of non-voters?

What was the preference of 16-18 year olds? Arguably they should have had a vote. I think particularly because it will take so long to leave, people who would have been eligible to vote by the time we leave, ought to have their views taken into account.

 

3 hours ago, thehowler said:

But some remainers can't, so they say the public are thick/lied to/ill-informed, give it to the MPs. But the MPs are freaking out/can't pass a vote and so the remainers say what about a 2nd ref, it's our best/only chance of staying in. Pass it back to the people.

The same people that already asked to leave.

It would be different people. An extra 1.5-2m would be eligible (having reached 18 since the referendum) and a similar number have probably died. This would add hundreds of thousands of voters to remain and remove hundreds of thousands from leave.

 

 

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, frederico said:

I think we should have a vote on having another vote, or maybe even a vote on the vote about the vote.

This is a democracy after all.

Also people should have to take an iq test to make sure they are not thick, of course if you are rich or you know someone important, you won't have to do that bit.

Brilliant ? 

And pretty well spot on how some think on this thread

 

[GrizzlyDave]

45 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

What were the people told in the other countries which had an EU related referendum?

War is peace

Freedom is slavery

Ignorance is strength

[GrizzlyDave]

11 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

The majority who voted wanted to leave, but it wasn't a majority of the electorate. It's 37.5% leave, 34.7% remain, 27.8% didn't vote.

As this was an advisory referendum it seems reasonable to ask whether the voters were representative of the electorate.

What is the preference of non-voters?

What was the preference of 16-18 year olds? Arguably they should have had a vote. I think particularly because it will take so long to leave, people who would have been eligible to vote by the time we leave, ought to have their views taken into account.

 

It would be different people. An extra 1.5-2m would be eligible (having reached 18 since the referendum) and a similar number have probably died. This would add hundreds of thousands of voters to remain and remove hundreds of thousands from leave.

 

 

WGAF.

Didn’t vote = Irrelevant.

[GrizzlyDave]

Duplicate

Edited September 15, 2018 by GrizzlyDave

[ccc]

4 hours ago, ccc said:

What planet are you on ? Quotes please or an apology. Your choice. Man up and admit you mixed me up with someone else.

Hello Pig. Apology please. 

[Kosmin]

38 minutes ago, GrizzlyDave said:

WGAF.

Didn’t vote = Irrelevant.

Would you argue this in all cases, given that it was an advisory referendum?

Say nine people wanted to make a collection decision. Five vote yes, four vote no. Then two who vote no die. Should the remaining seven implement "yes?"

 

[Kosmin]

1 hour ago, pig said:

Going by everything that was said, 'Project Fear', 'we could be like Norway' 'nobody is saying we would leave the SM' ' 'they need us more than we need them' etc etc - not to mention any Brexiter you may have met in the last few years,  in your opinion do you think a majority of people who voted Leave had a 'no deal' Brexit in mind ? 

Because in my opinion it was so far from anybodies preference it didn't even exist as a concept.

If your opinion is correct that would make it meaningless rather than unknowable.

They may have been unaware of any economic downsides of leaving, but if their preference for leaving for other reasons was strong enough it may outweigh these disadvantages. I think people would rather change their reasoning than change their conclusion. So if people voted Leave and thought it would cost nothing, and subsequently are told - and accept - it will cost £xxbn, they conveniently argue the benefits are worth more to them than this. I'm sceptical that they would have overwhelmingly voted the same way with different information, but I don't think I have a basis for saying anything beyond this.

[Sheeple Splinter]

5 minutes ago, Kosmin said:

1. Would you argue this in all cases, given that it was an advisory referendum?

2. Say nine people wanted to make a collection decision. Five vote yes, four vote no. Then two who vote no die. Should the remaining seven implement "yes?"

 

1. I would but unsure of your alternative; were you thinking of a voting threshold or just to add non-voters to the losers total... so that the losers* are the winners? 

* EU ref 2016.

2. Yes, until the next vote.

Discussed waaay upthread but this is an excerpt (my underlining) from the post mortem report on the referendum and IMHO a good read.

Quote

… 

23.Parliamentary sovereignty, and the associated principle that no Parliament can bind a successor, makes the concept of a legally binding referendum impossible in theory. However, it is clear that, in reality, referendums are seen by the public as conferring an obligation on parliamentarians to deliver the result. Parliament has delivered this, and the EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill completed its passage through both Houses, and received Royal Assent on 16 March 2017.

24.In other countries, referendums are not conducted on the basis that a Prime Minister must resign in the event of losing a referendum. A more responsible conduct of the Government’s case in the run up to the referendum, and proper planning for a Leave vote, would not have opened up so much new controversy nor left the Prime Minister’s authority and credibility undermined. Using a referendum as a “bluff call” in order to close down unwelcome debate on an issue is a questionable use of referendums. Indeed, it is incumbent on future Parliaments and governments to consider the potential consequences of promising referendums, particularly when, as a result, they may be expected to implement an outcome that they opposed.

...

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubadm/496/49605.htm

[Sheeple Splinter]

2 hours ago, Kosmin said:

He doesn't have evidence of the deal preference of the people who voted for Leave and neither do you. He might be wrong that most don't want no deal. But you don't have evidence for that.

FYI:

https://www.survation.com/public-polled-on-preferred-brexit-deal/

[Kosmin]

14 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

FYI:

https://www.survation.com/public-polled-on-preferred-brexit-deal/

 

Thanks, but I'm not sure this is relevant to the dispute (what type of Brexit did leave voters want). It appears to be a poll of people aged 18+ in the UK. But only people who voted leave are relevant to the intentions of those who voted leave.

[Kosmin]

10 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1. I would but unsure of your alternative; were you thinking of a voting threshold or just to add non-voters to the losers total... so that the losers* are the winners? 

* EU ref 2016.

2. Yes, until the next vote.

Discussed waaay upthread but this is an excerpt (my underlining) from the post mortem report on the referendum and IMHO a good read.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201617/cmselect/cmpubadm/496/49605.htm

1) I had heard of people saying Leave ought to have been required to win a large percentage of the votes, regardless of turnout.

I've seen other claims that they should have been required to win a certain percentage of the electorat. For example 40%, as in the 1979 Scottish Assembly referendum, as discussed by Jon Danzig here:

https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/03/23/eu-referendum-flawed/

As he also points out - as I have earlier in this thread - Remain would have won in several years due to demographic changes. If it takes several years to leave and by that time the electorate would favour remaining it is clearly absurd to leave if we wish to call it a democratic result. If we can't leave immediately and by the time we are ready to leave, a majority want to stay, why should we implement a decision made by a different electorate several years ago?

 

Where public opinion is close to 50:50 it's seem reasonable to require a larger margin to implement a change which is not easily reversed. It may be reversed at great expense, or it may not be reversed despite the wishes of the majority.

 

2) Why? Is that really in the spirit of democracy?

 

Thanks for the link. I'm not sure how they arrived at the opinion that you underlined! In the same document they observe it was a "bluff-call" referendum and it was problematic because it wasn't a binary question with “no route map as to what Leave actually looked like”

[Sheeple Splinter]

1 hour ago, Kosmin said:

 

1. Thanks, but I'm not sure this is relevant to the dispute (what type of Brexit did leave voters want). It appears to be a poll of people aged 18+ in the UK. 2. But only people who voted leave are relevant to the intentions of those who voted leave.

1. The type of Brexit required was not on the voting slip. The report, linked above, comments on the relationship between direct and representative democracy. Voters expected Parliament to carry out the referendum result.

2. At the time, the majority voted to leave and a year later an increased majority (85+%) voted for the parties who had pledged to respect the referendum result. Even at the 2017GE, neither party presented a clear option such as outlined above. 

[Kosmin]

17 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

2. At the time, the majority voted to leave and a year later an increased majority (85+%) voted for the parties who had pledged to respect the referendum result. Even at the 2017GE, neither party presented a clear option such as outlined above. 

No party, except possibly UKIP, campaigned entirely on the referendum. I think the Conservative party did much worse than it expected because people disagreed with their domestic policies. But I suppose one could argue they did badly because people wanted the Conservatives to have a weak bargaining position. There were already murmurings about Conservatives not being united about leaving, so if people were really worried about that, they would have voted UKIP.

All of these impacts are likely to have been very weak because most people take into account the FPTP system when voting in a general election. If anyone seriously thought the general election was evidence that an increased number were now in favour of leaving, there would be no reason not to have another referendum. Can you imagine the embarrassment for remainers if 85+% voted to leave in a second referendum after a bunch of MPs said that remain was going to win?!!!

I'm sceptical that there has been a big shift in attitudes since the referendum. But I think the general election suggests most people think other issues are more important than Europe.

 

[Kosmin]

33 minutes ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

1. The type of Brexit required was not on the voting slip. The report, linked above, comments on the relationship between direct and representative democracy. Voters expected Parliament to carry out the referendum result.

I didn't mean the report on the types of Brexit wasn't relevant. I meant the survey you linked wasn't relevant. It doesn't tell us the intentions of leave voters on 23rd June 2016 (inbruges was arguing that people who argue that a majority didn't vote for a hard Brexit were claiming to be mind readers and I was simply pointing out that to claim they all did want a hard Brexit, or no deal, required him to have read their minds). It tells us the views of people at a later date (I don't know if they were eligible to vote in the referendum, whether they voted, if so how they voted, or whether they have changed their views since they voted).

What is your last sentence based upon? I think the people who want a second referendum or want to remain don't expect Parliament to carry out the referendum. Is there any polling on this or is it just an assertion? Do you think the report was supposed to be an objective judgement of public opinion, or was it just supposed to browbeat those who opposed the result?

[Peter Hun]

11 hours ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Well that's a fecking pathetic response, which is what I'd expect from a twerp like you.

When a large part of the world is on starvation wages while comfortably off first worlders demand more money for ... what exactly? Then what do you think is going to happen? It's as certain as entropy. Dickhead.

What do you think is happening to all those hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs, hmmm?? How many will survive automation?? Dickhead.

Small scale highly adaptable production units to cater for the things that people want a & see as desirable, the things that are forever changing, usually because of changing technology. Think 19th C. Brum.

Oh, & er ... dickhead.

Sone point in the future all jobs will be automated so we should get rid of the jobs now?

Genius, from someone who thought globalisation was invented when he read about in a newspaper.

[Peter Hun]

8 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Would you argue this in all cases, given that it was an advisory referendum?

Say nine people wanted to make a collection decision. Five vote yes, four vote no. Then two who vote no die. Should the remaining seven implement "yes?"

 

Sorry, but if you don't vote your opinion doesn't count. That's the point.

 

[Peter Hun]

5 hours ago, Sheeple Splinter said:

2. At the time, the majority voted to leave and a year later an increased majority (85+%) voted for the parties who had pledged to respect the referendum result. Even at the 2017GE, neither party presented a clear option such as outlined above. 

Thats a manipulation of the voters intent. The GE was not a referendum on the EU.

No party has a mandate to leave the EU , regardless of the deal, because no party has a mandate.

Only a majority of MP's voting in the commons can make any decision and the House of Lords are perfectly justified in rejecting those un-mandated laws if they see fit.

[Peter Hun]

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/choose-your-own-brexit-an-interactive-fantasy-for-all-ages-20180912177209

[thehowler]

I see the Mayor of London has come out for another ref...note the compulsive Boris dig, plus ça change.

At least the mayor isn't claiming people have changed their minds, he's going for it's a bad deal so let's say no, remarkably similar to the old remain campaign rhetoric.

More pressure on Labour to appease the party remainers but if they back a 2nd ref at conference it means they will have to state a clear position - time to clamber off the fence. They've been (sensibly) waiting the Tories out, but a ref declaration would force the SM issue...

Writing in the Observer, the Labour politician said that with the UK due to leave the EU in six months, it now faced either a "bad deal" or "no deal". The debate had also become "more about Boris Johnson's political ambitions" than what was good for the UK, he said.

[rollover]

14 hours ago, Cryptotrader said:

Oh contraire! No deal is the default option if May does what she has done since March 2017... keep kicking the can down the road. It doesn't matter how few MP's support it.

You are bad at math: about 70 hard exiters MP's - 650 MP's = 580 MP's majority decision. No deal Brexit = 0% chance to go through.

[rollover]

38 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

https://www.thedailymash.co.uk/features/choose-your-own-brexit-an-interactive-fantasy-for-all-ages-20180912177209

?

[HairyOb1]

11 hours ago, ****-eyed octopus said:

Well I'm damn well sure you're a complete fraud. A psychopathic one.

Of course you are, completely removing the original argument that you know fack all about what you talk.; I'm the psycho

8 hours ago, ccc said:

Hello Pig. Apology please. 

Not needed, pig was completely on point and right about you.  Its a bit bed wetting to ask for an apology too, it's a forum, man up...

Just now, thehowler said:

I see the Mayor of London has come out for another ref...note the compulsive Boris dig, plus ça change.

At least the mayor isn't claiming people have changed their minds, he's going for it's a bad deal so let's say no, remarkably similar to the old remain campaign rhetoric.

More pressure on Labour to appease the party remainers but if they back a 2nd ref at conference it means they will have to state a clear position - time to clamber off the fence. They've been (sensibly) waiting the Tories out, but a ref declaration would force the SM issue...

Writing in the Observer, the Labour politician said that with the UK due to leave the EU in six months, it now faced either a "bad deal" or "no deal". The debate had also become "more about Boris Johnson's political ambitions" than what was good for the UK, he said.

Boris is a dickhead, and if you can't see he's put himself and his ambitions above the country then you're not worthy of discussing the issue.  Khan is a better person, let alone politician. BoJo thinks of BoJo and little else, apart from little bojo...

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, rollover said:

You are bad at math: about 70 hard exiters MP's - 650 MP's = 580 MP's majority decision. No deal Brexit = 0% chance to go through.

You seem pretty pleased with that fact as does our British hating other poster on this thread, and it has been the case that MP's percentage wise have been pro EU for decades now at the annoyance of the majority of the electorate. Then one day they made the mistake of handing the decision over to the electorate by referendum and lost to then with the support of the minority Remainers to try and dilute Brexit to nothing, some posters are bragging about it on this thread, even trolling at the fact that Brexiteers are going to get the two fingers.

Well personally I am now more worried  about a very aggressive and vocal 17 million winning voters being ignored because a minority group could not convince a nation and are bad losers. Stay or leave is of no concern to me compared with the potential revolt in British politics that I now suspect is on it's way.  Do people really think that they are just going to shrug their shoulders in their deprived Immigrant over run areas after voting Brexit because some self entitled p***k with a 2nd home in France who does not give a hoot about his own country Britain, even hates it,  and cares more about the inconveniences of leaving the EU for his own selfish needs is going to just walk away quietly 

[GrizzlyDave]

10 hours ago, Kosmin said:

Would you argue this in all cases, given that it was an advisory referendum? 

Say nine people wanted to make a collection decision. Five vote yes, four vote no. Then two who vote no die. Should the remaining seven implement "yes?"

 

Yes all cases.

If you are registered to vote and don’t vote, then get upset about the result; tough titties.

(There are obviously separate arguments about voting age, electronic/proxy voting, and voting registration which are barriers to voting but you work with the system you have.)

In your example all 9 vote. The lazy feck who didn’t turn up and then gets all upset about it doesn’t count.

As for recounting based on deaths, seems too hard to practically administer (votes are meant to be anonymous).

But a vote every 10-20 years on a core topic would capture changes in society/across the generations. (So that would be referendums on Maastricht, and Lisbon).

Edited September 16, 2018 by GrizzlyDave