UKC

One thing I didn't get about Brexit

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 spotter1 12 Jul 2016
I don't understand why the referendum rules were based on above 50% majority.
if the referendum rules were Brexit only in the case of 66% in favour or more, or something along those lines Cameron could still say the British people were unhappy of the EU deal in case of 52% like it turned out, Britain could still stay as he wanted and he could still negotiate a new EU deal based on that 'unhappiness'.
if there was a 66% or more Brexit majority then the UK would be out, but then it would be much more clear and less divisive.
there are many precedents to such rules like cancellation of constitutional laws in many parliaments around the world.
3
 wercat 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

well put
2
In reply to spotter1:

But the EU had already made it crystal clear prior to the referendum that they were not willing to budge one iota on the main sticking point for vast swathes of the country...free movement of people. Also there was precedent with Camerons previous attempts at renegotiating the relationship.
 Ramblin dave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:
There aren't referendum rules about 50% or 66% or any other majority, because strictly speaking the referendum was a purely advisory test of public opinion. It could have been 100% leave and the government would still have no legal obligation to do anything (and vice versa) - it's just that ignoring the result would probably lead to the government getting wiped out at the next general election.

The fact that the government allowed it to be turned into something that's effectively binding without establishing how strong a mandate they'd require to take action is arguably one of a series of cockups that happened because no-one was expecting it to even be close.
Post edited at 10:34
2
 Chris the Tall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

The govt could have introduced some threshold if they had wanted to - this was the case with Scottish devolution referendum in the 70's, and it proved crucial. They could have insisted on 40% of the electorate (as with devolution) or even 50% (as they have imposed on trade union ballots).

But it was part of the gamble that Cameron made that such safeguards weren't required - it would have meant he lost the support from the Euro-septics in his party that he had been trying to secure.
 Doug 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

Clearly they should have had some 'rules' included in the Act that allowed the referendum but stupidly they didn't. From memory, changes to the French constitution have to approved by 2/3rds to be accepted & something similar would have been appropriate here. I can't remember the debate, did anyone, of any party, propose this ?

1
 balmybaldwin 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> But the EU had already made it crystal clear prior to the referendum that they were not willing to budge one iota on the main sticking point for vast swathes of the country...free movement of people. Also there was precedent with Camerons previous attempts at renegotiating the relationship.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP's question. a 66%vote would have removed a lot of the current angst due to a close vote
 JJL 12 Jul 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:

> I'm not sure what that has to do with the OP's question. a 66%vote would have removed a lot of the current angst due to a close vote

Would it though?
We'd then have no exit but a majority who asked for one. Can't see that resulting in "oh, ok then" either!
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to JJL:

In response to the original question, surely the answer is democracy, the majority voted for Brexit.
I can't imagine if the majority had voted to remain but only by fifty point something percent then the remainers would be saying "Oh it doesn't count." It's like having a referendum in Scotland then when it doesn't produce the result wanted by the SNP they start on about having another. You either have a democracy and trust people with a vote and accept the results or you accept a more totalitarian regime.

Last week I was in a shop and two customers were bemoaning the outcome of the Brexit vote and playing devil's advocate I stated "Well, that's democracy for you." They tried to deny that it was a democratic decision but had to concede that whilst it was the majority they had somehow voted wrongly or that people who voted for Brexit shouldn't be allowed to vote.

All this smacks of trying to move the goalposts after the election.
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:

My point was about Cameron having something to negotiate.... the EU had laid out their stall prior to the referendum. Everyone knew that immigration was a huge factor for the leave vote and leave voters already knew the EU had zero interest in their concerns and wouldn't budge. So what was Cameron going to negotiate for them? Not a lot . So whilst the suggestion above might have some merit, lets not be under any illusion that it would have been any advantage as a bargaining position for Cameron.
You could argue that we technically have the best bargaining position now, we are going to leave (ok, still possible we don't but you get the point). Where are the olive branches to stop us invoking A50? None, they want us to get on with it and hopefully we do. Then we will see some proper negotiations and discussions on the future relationship

 Doug 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:


> All this smacks of trying to move the goalposts after the election.

must be those badgers that Owen Paterson wanted to kill
 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
Democracy in the true athenian sense requires the demos to educate themselves before participating in government. I am not by any stretch saying that voting for Brexit means you are uneducated, clearly many are extremly educated and have well thought out arguments. But it is a relatively simple matter to go on line and to find facts and figures provided by experts in each field showing that many of the brexiteers claims were utterly false. What saddens me is that a vote like this has been used by many to make a statement about the cynical campaign run by both sides and that rather than properly reading up about the EU and what all the implications were, a large sector of the population seems to have taken the word of those muppets, Johnson, Gove and Farage, not to mention IDS (who's magically ducked under the radar and dodged the bullets) who have now proven that they were utterly untrustworthy. I was wavering under a barrage of optimism, and the way the remain campaign was run which was poor. But in the end I went and read all I could and decided that it seemed to me that brexiteers were lieing more, and that they seemed the least likely to be right.

My point is, when it is blindingly obvious that many people have been swayed by lies (in as much as there are daily tv clips of people saying as much), then a close vote as this was, should be taken as gospel. It was an advisory referendum i.e. parliaments soverign right is to overule that decision should they think it feasible to provide a better solution. It should then be re presented. Now whether that would bring the same result is a different question, the government having gotten peoples backs up, but this was not a clear cut mandate. If it had been a 5% difference, or better 10%, it WOULD be clear cut, but the government has to weigh up what is going to be more prudent for its populus based on evidence. What concerns me is that the new PM has a track record for ignoring expert advice and reports which take years to complete. Yes, experts get it wrong sometimes, but I would rather take the chance on a well balanced and thought out argument than "Oh, we've had enough of experts". That way leads american style politics and god help us if we go down that road...
Post edited at 14:10
5
OP spotter1 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> But the EU had already made it crystal clear prior to the referendum that they were not willing to budge one iota on the main sticking point for vast swathes of the country...free movement of people. Also there was precedent with Camerons previous attempts at renegotiating the relationship.

in that case what was the point of the whole thing ? (from Cameron's point of view)
OP spotter1 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> My point was about Cameron having something to negotiate.... the EU had laid out their stall prior to the referendum. Everyone knew that immigration was a huge factor for the leave vote and leave voters already knew the EU had zero interest in their concerns and wouldn't budge. So what was Cameron going to negotiate for them? Not a lot . So whilst the suggestion above might have some merit, lets not be under any illusion that it would have been any advantage as a bargaining position for Cameron.

> You could argue that we technically have the best bargaining position now, we are going to leave (ok, still possible we don't but you get the point). Where are the olive branches to stop us invoking A50? None, they want us to get on with it and hopefully we do. Then we will see some proper negotiations and discussions on the future relationship

so basically you are pointing to the main problem with the EU, namely that member states have no negotiating power except to leave. no matter how bad a 'local' situation is due to free movement for instance (lets say an over abudance of polish plumbers in a certain area) the UK government cannot do anything within the UK or in front of the EU institutions. they have no power.
the rigidness of the EU seems to be its future downfall. (hard to see how the UK example will be unique)
2
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

".. a close vote as this was, should be taken as gospel."

Agree entirely (but sure there has been a typo).

As for Athenian democracy; seems that it wasn't very democratic in that only male citizens who owned land and were not slaves were entitled to vote so only about one fifth of the population.

Surely would be voters were equally able to use the internet etc to filter out the scaremongering and lies broadcast by Remainers as the Brexiters.

 Offwidth 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
Our democracy is representative (we elect MPs to make decisions), this ballot was only advisory. Mind you, the public clearly didn't let evidence get in the way of many a tasty bit of brexit or remain rhetoric.
Post edited at 14:28
1
 Rich K 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

I don't think the Scottish independence referendum said what should be done based on the result either. The voting reform one did, but that was a much more straightforward case of changing the legislation on how to decide who wins an election.
In reply to spotter1:
"so basically you are pointing to the main problem with the EU, namely that member states have no negotiating power except to leave"

Well, i'm really only talking about one of the "four freedoms" (free movement of people). On these issues it does seem that no member state has any negotiating position other than to leave if they don't like it....(and lose the other three freedoms as well as a consequence of refusing one of them)
Post edited at 15:04
 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
Yes - a typo. Soz. No the point is that democracy by its very inception was that people who wanted to participate in goverence (except for women which is obviously now unacceptable) could on the proviso that they actually learned about the matter in hand. It's not that everybody gets a vote. And also you had a vote on everything if you could be bothered to show up. Todays democracy is quite unlike this in that we elect a representative (who's not actually very representitive what with FPTP) and they then make laws on our behalf. We rarely get a real say like we've just had, and instead of taking it seriously many have just voted with no interest in finding the facts out first. You are quite correct, there is information to persuade you in either direction out there. That's what I did, and I wish that everybody who voted had done the same. Unfortunately you have the Sun and Daily Mail pushing their own agenda and holding court to a vast swath of the population and feeding them deliberate lies and misinformation. I don't think you could level this quite as easily at other rags. Brexit claimed there was scaremongering conducted by remain, well is not falsely claiming there are 100's of thousands of migrants stealing jobs not scaremongering? They've been at it sing the second world war and before! It's time they were held accountable.
Post edited at 15:08
1
In reply to beardy mike: "But it is a relatively simple matter to go on line and to find facts and figures provided by experts in each field showing that many of the brexiteers claims were utterly false."

Without disputing this, as I am sure there are many examples, I did think it was very interesting the u turn in rhetoric that the chief of Siemens has adopted since Brexit. A cynic would think he had been put up to the scaremongering prior to the referendum by the govt

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/11/germanys-siemens-embraces-pr...

 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

To be fair, what else is he going to do. He's got to get on with the cards he's been dealt. I must say, out of all the people to make arguements forexit, I found James Dyson the most convincing. He's absolutely right, trade will not cease and life will go on. To me it was much more a question of what we as a country want to represent. And personally I don't want to be seen as an anti-immigrant, illiberal society. That's simply not what this country is about, which is tolerance and inclusivity and has been for atleast a century now.
3
 BnB 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> Without disputing this, as I am sure there are many examples, I did think it was very interesting the u turn in rhetoric that the chief of Siemens has adopted since Brexit. A cynic would think he had been put up to the scaremongering prior to the referendum by the govt

He just did what any CEO must do:

Plan A: fight to avoid the uncertainties of change by seeking to exert influence, and then

Plan B: reassure his huge local workforce that all will be fine after all so as not to suffer damaging staff losses.

What would you have done in his position?
In reply to BnB:

If you "are committed to the UK whatever happens" "in for the long term" and "don't get jerked up and down because the UK is a good place to do business" then why not have that as plan A? Good for your staff moral I would have thought.

(Although I freely admit I am totally unqualified for that position so happy to be told the above would have been a bonkers assessment for the CEO to make)
 Welsh Kate 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

Athenian democracy was democratic in the sense that all adult male citizens (the 'demos') had the right to vote regardless of their wealth, influence or education. And democratic in that everyone's vote had the same value. The fact that women and slaves were excluded is, in the context of antiquity, irrelevant - they simply don't count in a political context. It's something we have to make clear to our first year students ever year. That doesn't mean, however, that all adult male citizens were as fully informed on matters as one might have liked, or that they didn't make decisions that they regretted.

The Mytilene debate is a famous - and fascinating - example of this. The demos voted to carry out excessively brutal reprisals on the people of Mytilene who had revolted. The next day they changed their minds - but were able to vote again instantly and change the decision - an advantage or weaknesses of democracy?

 Martin W 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

This could be argued to be a classic example of the 'Tyranny of the majority', in particular the risk of abandonment of rationality: a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

Perhaps DC and team should have done a bit more reading around the subject before finalising their draft of the referendum bill.

Apparently in the spring of 1945 Churchill suggested that the wartime British government should hold a referendum on whether to continue delaying a general election (the last one having been held in 1935). Clement Attlee responded: "I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.” (He probably had in mind episodes like the 1938 referendum in Germany which approved the occupation of Austria.)

Mind you, referendums do seem to be quite popular in other countries. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_by_country
1
 wercat 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Siemens isn't a typical company in this context. There has been a British Siemens Company since the 1840s (part of our technological war effort in both World Wars) and I wonder whether the figure for employees is for the British originated company or for subsidiaries of the German - come to think of it I suppose that the British Co might have been bought up at some time!

So anyway, Siemens has a long standing relationship with the UK.
 wercat 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Welsh Kate:

Was that why British Democracy, historically speaking, was extremely selective before the days of universal suffrage? They could quote a classical model!
 wercat 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
so are you quite happy with a simple majority that takes away status from people and leaves us in such an uncertain state? It doesn't take much working out to see why no one should question a tiny majority in favour of the status quo - the reason is that the consultation showed no strong will to leave. And arguably, the status quo, people's existing rights within the EU should not be drastically changed or reduced on a blurry result. A 66% majority would have settled it as it would have indicated a clear national will to leave and one that isn't likely to have been carried by any of:

Whim on the day

Noise caused by dishonest campaigning

Mood caused by BBC broadcastingin the news on the actual voting day of atrocious and horrible crimes committed by IMMIGRANTS (as they did)

Settled Immigrants from outside Europe deciding to advantage links with their cultures and regions by severing the EU connection voted for before they arrived.


etc etc etc


You've made me shout now:

OF COURSE THE STATUS QUO OF A COUNTRY SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM CHANGE BASED ON A POOR SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO IN THE PROCESS
Post edited at 16:18
3
 John2 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

'A cynic would think he had been put up to the scaremongering prior to the referendum by the govt '

Not to mention the people at UBS who said the FTSE could go below 5000 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/06/22/investors-cautious-optimism-... . Admittedly it's still early days, but if the Brexit debate had not been so well-informed one might almost think that there had been a concerted effort to persuade people to make excessively pessimistic economic forecasts.
1
 Welsh Kate 12 Jul 2016
In reply to wercat:

Possibly more on the Roman model than the Athenian though. Roman voting rights were linked with wealth
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to wercat:

It doesn't matter if I'm happy or not with the decision; what I'm saying is we live in a democracy and the majority voted for Brexit and that decision should be respected. Instead of respecting the democratic decision some people are now saying the majority should have been by a certain margin, people are too stupid to have a vote because they read The Sun, there was too much scaremongering etc etc. Smacks to me of poor losers saying hang on a minute lets keep having a referendum until we get the result we want.

People may have made bad choices in how they cast their votes but it's their right to vote how they choose. Sure, some of the papers were strongly pro or against but in our democratic society the press are not censored.

1
 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall: And in our democratic society, papers should be held accountable for publishing falsehoods. Look, I am not saying people were too thick because they read the sun. I'm saying that it is our DUTY as voters to go and search out reliable facts, not to take sources like the Sun as reliable. These are papers that are run by extremely wealthy oligarchs who have nothing but their own interests at heart and are literally pissing themselves with laughter at our stupidity, not only for buying their crap newpapers, but then believing whatever lies they are pedling that week. Yes, a democratic result was reached, which in the grand scheme of things did not really point in one direction or the other. All I'm advocating is that more discussion is required. THAT would be democratic. Discussing whether there is a way to retain the benefits which 48% of those who voted relish rather than acting rashly and punching ourselves repeatedly in the face by pronouncing how great we're going to be on our own. I have no doubt that if we leave we will survive and most likely do well. That's really not the point though, it's that you don't ask as simplistic a question as they asked to reach a decision which is quite as important and complex as this and then take that simple answer as the absolute solution when there is not really a strong consensus. It'd be like going to a BMC meeting on where they asked whether all bolts should be removed and 52% said yes and 48% said no so the next day you just took all the bolts out, broke everybodies drills and went round telling sport climbers that they had no right to object.

2
 Ramblin dave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

There's a legitimate argument that if you're going to embark on a course of action that it's very hard to change your mind about then you should be very certain that you're not going to change your mind.

In this case, if we'd voted to stay in by a narrow margin then Eurosceptics could have continued to argue their case, and if there was a significant shift in public opinion in their favour then they could have pressed for another referendum and won it. It would have been hard, but not impossible if there was public support for it.

In contrast, once we activate Article 50, that's pretty much it. It'd only take a very slight shift in public opinion for a majority to want to stay in Europe again, but there'd be very little that anyone could do about it, at least on such advantageous terms (rebate, exemption from Schengen) as we have now. Hence it would have been reasonable, when framing the referendum, for the government to say that they wouldn't act on it unless there was a clear enough majority that we can be reasonably confident that it wouldn't change any time soon. Pulling that argument out in retrospect is probably going to be politically untenable, though.
 Indy 12 Jul 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

Is that the same Dyson that moved 800 British jobs to the Far East to improve profits?
 RomTheBear 12 Jul 2016
In reply to beardy mike:

> To be fair, what else is he going to do. He's got to get on with the cards he's been dealt. I must say, out of all the people to make arguements forexit, I found James Dyson the most convincing.

The same Dyson who said he was going to move jobs elsewhere if we didn't join the Euro ? Clearly a visionary.
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2016
In reply to JJL:
> We'd then have no exit but a majority who asked for one. Can't see that resulting in "oh, ok then" either!

No, and that would be fine. There'd be nothing stopping those campaigning for 'Brexit' from continuing to try to make their case and build a stronger mandate for another referendum a year or two down the road. (Or alternatively perhaps a solid general election victory based on a manifesto commitment to that effect.)

Because that's the thing about a massive irreversible change, the decision to not do it (for now) *is* reversible, as we may soon be finding out about Scottish independence.
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
I don't think 'democracy' is entirely what you think it is.

But regarding this:
> Sure, some of the papers were strongly pro or against but in our democratic society the press are not censored.

Of course the press is censored, it's just not censored by the state. Much of our media is owned by a small group of radically right-wing billionaire sociopaths.

1
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

As you say, the press isn't censored by the state and in the UK we have a wide spectrum of media, the press, TV, internet etc reflecting the diverse political make up of the country. Perhaps you'd rather live in some tin pot socialist utopia safely away from the reach of radically right wing billionaire sociopaths? (a phrase that has cropped up more than once in your posts recently).

Perhaps I'm just naive and the wool has been well and truly pulled over my eyes by this secret sect of sociopath press barons but I'm well aware of what democracy is and quite happy to enjoy the benefits of living in a democracy.
1
 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Yes the same dyson, a few years on and having changed his opinion. All I said was I found him sincere and more convincing than Boris spewing shite like he was.
 RomTheBear 12 Jul 2016
In reply to beardy mike:
> Yes the same dyson, a few years on and having changed his opinion. All I said was I found him sincere and more convincing than Boris spewing shite like he was.

Just saying, Brexit may be good for his business (lower pound will favour exporters of this kind of goods, sadly for us it's a small part of our economy), but he didn't seem to even understand that the non-eu immigration policy that bothered him had nothing to do with the EU.
Seriously he should just focus on making better vacuum cleaners, because the ones I had made by his company were all utter shite.
Post edited at 19:24
3
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
> (a phrase that has cropped up more than once in your posts recently).

I've used the same phrase more than once? God, how embarrassing. Ha ha.
Kind of you to notice though.

I'm quoting Frankie Boyle. Lately I've been liking Frankie Boyle more and more. This is a relatively old one:

“It’s worth remembering that in the press, public opinion is often used interchangeably with media opinion, as if the public was somehow much the same as a group of radically rightwing billionaire sociopaths.” – Frankie Boyle
3
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

Interesting that you have to rely on a stand up comedian for your socio political views of the world
3
Removed User 12 Jul 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Mr Dyson's business model seems to be built on WC Fields "Never give a sucker an even break". He's now peddling a hairdrier on the TV and elsewhere at £299 - good luck to him - you can buy plenty round about a tenner that do the job just as well - oh and without microchip technology telling you its too hot (when your hairs burning I think you might know). Why this mans view on Brexit is relevant is beyond me - maybe because our European neighbours are not as enamoured of his products as he would like he's just throwing his teddies out of the pram.
1
 Timmd 12 Jul 2016
In reply to spotter1:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

A second referendum is apparently going to be debated in parliament.

If people are interesting in this happening along arguably more clear cut grounds, there's a petition here to sign.
1
 beardy mike 12 Jul 2016
In reply to RomTheBear:

Now that I can agree on totally - worst vacuum cleaner I've ever owned. The apple of the vacuum world? <ducks behind sofa and waits for incoming fire>
 Dave the Rave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

It's a travesty if a second referendum is allowed. No one got a second chance with marginal Tory/Labour wins at General Election. A votes a vote and the majority wanted out.
I had reasons to vote either way at the referendum and actually voted 'in', but now we are out I'm glad that some had more bottle than me and out we should stay.
1
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

Totally agree that a second referendum would be a travesty.
As for the petition that sounds pretty spurious with at least 77,000 names having already been removed as being false or generated by computer programmes. Not only do the remainers want to reverse a democratic decision but obviously feel the need to engage in these underhand tactics. Why bother having elections at all if the result is not going to be upheld?
 deepsoup 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:
> No one got a second chance with marginal Tory/Labour wins at General Election.

Maybe. Although in the case of those 28 (29?) Tories still being investigated for electoral fraud in the last general election, in spite of the best efforts of the party to obstruct, that does perhaps remain to be seen.
 wercat 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

I thought it was quite likely that the interference with the petition came from people wanting to discredit it.

Frankly, comparing this decision to a General election makes me question basic understanding
2
 Dave the Rave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

> Totally agree that a second referendum would be a travesty.

> As for the petition that sounds pretty spurious with at least 77,000 names having already been removed as being false or generated by computer programmes. Not only do the remainers want to reverse a democratic decision but obviously feel the need to engage in these underhand tactics. Why bother having elections at all if the result is not going to be upheld?

Exactly, and one reason that I may vote for Theresa May ( vomiting my labour, working class pride up here) if she doesn't allow it to happen. Ps is this why they want Cameron in the Lords to help vote for a second referendum that would probably go in favour of 'in'?
 Timmd 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:
I'm wondering if it might turn out that a second one is held once the terms of a Brexit are clearer, which to me seems like a good idea. As it wouldn't be people voting after being swayed by a dishonest 350 million to the EU claim, for instance.

In the way that politics can be something of a zig zag with the ground in the middle being what happens, if enough people sign it, I'm wondering if that's what may end up happening after some debate.

Given things like the 350 million a week claim, and people who voted Leave as a protest vote against the government, I don't think that would be a bad thing - it could be in the interests of democracy.

Here it is again.

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215
Post edited at 22:18
2
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to wercat:

Any evidence to back up your view that " it was quite likely that the interference with the petition came from people wanting to discredit it" ?

When did I compare this decision to a general election?
 Ramblin dave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:
> Totally agree that a second referendum would be a travesty.

Out of interest, if a reasonably well conducted opinion poll suggested that there'd been a massive swing back in public opinion and that after having a bit more of a think about it the public were something like 65:35 for staying in, would you (or Dave, or anyone else) still consider it a travesty to have a second referendum? Or indeed, to quietly forget about the whole thing?

I'm not saying that this is likely to happen, by the way, just having a gentle prod at your reasoning...
Post edited at 22:22
1
 Dave the Rave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Timmd:

There's lies and misguideance by all parties prior to any election and the vote sticks. There's thus no reason to re vote the referendum. A chance in a lifetime vote for many and they won.
1
 Timmd 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:
> There's lies and misguideance by all parties prior to any election and the vote sticks. There's thus no reason to re vote the referendum. A chance in a lifetime vote for many and they won.

Then I'm thinking it's time for a change in political campaigning, that there may be a need for some kind of organisation to oversea things to ensure truthfulness, or at least that outright lies aren't told. This could be a pivotal time where things begin to change.

Edit: I'm glad somebody has let me know they 'don't like this post'. It's very enlightening.
Post edited at 22:41
1
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Well, given the accuracy of recent opinion polls it would be hard to be certain that the poll really reflected people's views.
Even so I think it would be wrong to have another referendum so soon because it then sets a precedent and after any vote why shouldn't the disgruntled losers demand another vote, then another and just keep going until they get the result they want.

In this case there was a large turnout and a majority made their views clear. Now people are saying retrospectively that the majority should have been a certain percent but that is completely changing things; it was a simple yes/no vote with no pre specified majority needed.
 Ramblin dave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

That's sort of avoiding my question, though. The question is that if we had strong reason to believe that the result of the referendum no longer represented what the majority of people wanted, would it really be more democratic for the government to say "yes, but this was briefly what a majority of you wanted at the end of June, so this is what you're getting"?
1
 atrendall 12 Jul 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

You are right I am sort of avoiding your question because I have very little faith in opinion polls and don't know how else you can gauge opinion on a nationwide scale except by having a referendum. That was done and should be abided by.
In your previous post you speculated about a 65: 35 majority but now you just specify a majority; Brexit gained a majority in a high turn out poll so I see no need to try and reverse the decision because a vocal minority have got a petition together and are making a bit of a fuss. As a poster above said, this was billed as a once in a lifetime vote.

Are there any opinion polls that suggest 65% of the voters want to stay in the EU? I certainly haven't seen any.
 Ridge 12 Jul 2016
In reply to deepsoup:
> No, and that would be fine. There'd be nothing stopping those campaigning for 'Brexit' from continuing to try to make their case and build a stronger mandate for another referendum a year or two down the road. (Or alternatively perhaps a solid general election victory based on a manifesto commitment to that effect.)

The problem is that if that referendum ended up as 'leave', we'd right back where we are now, with the same predictions of economic disaster and brownshirts on the streets of Bradford, and another call to overthrow the result because it's not in the national interest. Also by the time that all that has happened we'll be so entwined with the EU it will be impossible to leave.

> Because that's the thing about a massive irreversible change, the decision to not do it (for now) *is* reversible, as we may soon be finding out about Scottish independence.

A massive almost irreversible change has already happened by stealth. The UK voted in a referendum in 1972(?) to join the EEC. That was an economic community, not the EU. The EU has arisen by stealth, treaty by treaty, until withdrawal is all but impossible without financial ruin.

I ultimately voted remain, but for purely financial reasons and out of narrow self interest. In the long term, over say 30 to 50 years, leaving might well be the best thing for this country. If we don't leave now then we'll never have the opportunity again.
Post edited at 23:18
1
 Ramblin dave 12 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

> You are right I am sort of avoiding your question because I have very little faith in opinion polls and don't know how else you can gauge opinion on a nationwide scale except by having a referendum.

The opinion polls were generally within a couple of percent either way of the actual result - they aren't perfect, but on a relatively straightforward yes-no question they seemed to do alright. The main reason that I specified such a large swing is partly because that sort of thing would be pretty obvious and hard to explain away even allowing for the margins of error on opinion polls.

So yeah, at the risk of going a bit Paxman, I'm going to ask again - if we had a good reason to believe that the referendum no longer represented what the majority of people wanted, would it still be a travesty not to honour the result?
 atrendall 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Ramblin dave:

If opinion polls generally "seem to do alright" then how come Brexit wasn't predicted? What about 2015 which was predicted to be neck and neck and yet the Tories won by 6.5%?

Personally I still think it would be a travesty not to honour the result of the vote that was billed as a once in a lifetime opportunity to have our say about the future of the UK. In future referendum type votes perhaps a minimum majority should be stipulated and be abided. One of the main reasons for honouring the result is I think to reverse the wishes of the people sets a precedent. If a politician becomes unpopular after they are elected why not have another election? Unpopular government, have another election. Why not have a referendum on every decision the government makes. Don't like the way a vote went then call for another and another and another until your views are reflected. What the country needs now is stability and to move forward with Brexit ASAP.
2
OP spotter1 13 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

> If opinion polls generally "seem to do alright" then how come Brexit wasn't predicted? What about 2015 which was predicted to be neck and neck and yet the Tories won by 6.5%?

polls arent always accurate. whats more interesting is whether peoples votes are influenced by polls. so say if remain is predicted strongly would that cause more people to vote brexit more as a emotional protest vote when they really dont want to leave. (or the exact opposite).
and, if thats the case can certain people create bogus polls to influence the real outcome ?
(maybe more suitable for the conspiracy thread.)
In reply to spotter1:

I posted about the wisdom of crowds phenomenon prior to the referendum. Its more influential on simple yes/no decisions, and we were bombarded with polls of small numbers of people which were meant to reflect the public as a whole. No need to be bogus, just selection bias would do...(agree it's probably more suitable for the conspiracy thread
In reply to beardy mike:

Dyson sucks up too much of other peoples' dirt.
 RomTheBear 13 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

> If opinion polls generally "seem to do alright" then how come Brexit wasn't predicted? What about 2015 which was predicted to be neck and neck and yet the Tories won by 6.5%?

Actually, there was a 30/40 %probability that Brexit happens according to the polls, so it was well within was the polls were predicting.
The problem was more some sort of general disbelief that it would actually happen.

2
In reply to atrendall:

> One of the main reasons for honouring the result is I think to reverse the wishes of the people sets a precedent. If a politician becomes unpopular after they are elected why not have another election?

Because an election is

a) legally binding
b) valid only for the term of the government.

Whereas the referendum was only advisory.

> Unpopular government, have another election, on an issue that will be, essentially, for ever.

Well, if the Government loses a vote of no confidence, then, yes, an election may be called. I'm not sure whether the Fixed Term Parliaments Act prevents votes of no confidence...
 beardy mike 13 Jul 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Well, if the Government loses a vote of no confidence, then, yes, an election may be called. I'm not sure whether the Fixed Term Parliaments Act prevents votes of no confidence...

According to wikipedia an vote of no confidence is still possible.
 jkarran 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Dave the Rave:

> There's lies and misguideance by all parties prior to any election and the vote sticks. There's thus no reason to re vote the referendum. A chance in a lifetime vote for many and they won.

Did they, really?

We'll see who the winners are out of this but it sure as hell won't be the people that voted for it.
jk
1
 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to jkarran:

Spot on. I read that the cosmetics company "lush" which is based in Poole has said its relocating to Germany. This was because Pooole voted out. And it was a clear sign to lush that the area did not welcome overseas workers in their town. They employ 1200 people in Poole .
1
Lusk 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

With a 58 - 42% Leave/Stay vote split, and considering most Leavers DO NOT object to overseas workers, that's verging on pathetic.
I hope they go bust!
2
 cathsullivan 13 Jul 2016
In reply to atrendall:

But the point is that the referendum was not a 'decision', it was an expression of public opinion.
 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Lusk:

It was because in Poole the vote to leave was a higher % to leave, and clearly that the company felt it was not a good message to their migrant workers in Poole .So they have offered to move them to Germany........

Why on earth would you want the company to go bust and for more people to go out of work..It is the sort of idiotic comment that tarnishes the Leavers.





 Dave the Rave 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

Thanks for that. That's the £50 I spend in the shop at Xmas gone somewhere British then. I'll pass it on to all the women at work who Facebook a lot.
 RomTheBear 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Lusk:

> With a 58 - 42% Leave/Stay vote split, and considering most Leavers DO NOT object to overseas workers, that's verging on pathetic.

Actually immigration was cited as one of the main reason for voting leave. So of course that means they want less EU workers.
 Ridge 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

> It was because in Poole the vote to leave was a higher % to leave, and clearly that the company felt it was not a good message to their migrant workers in Poole .So they have offered to move them to Germany.

Ah, Germany. Home of the AfD and firebombing of refugee hostels. I wonder if the workers got any say in having to uproot and move to Germany because their employer wants to punish the citizens of Poole, including those who voted remain?

 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:

Of course they could have been employing East Germans in Poole. Nobody said they were Syrians or non ru migrants. Maybe you have just jumped to the wrong conclusion!
1
 Ridge 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

Perhaps you're assuming their east german workforce will be happy to be deported or else lose their jobs?
 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:

i think we are talking at cross purposes.
 Ridge 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:
Perhaps.

I find it hard to believe that's the real reason for Lush moving to Germany. I also suspect their current EU migrant workforce in the UK won't be going with them. Redundancies all round I suspect, for both UK and 'EU migrant' employees in Poole, all blamed on the nasty leave voters. Quite a shrewd move on Lush's part.
Post edited at 22:33
1
 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:

Difficult one. Farage did say we would be poorer but it will be worth it.I admired him for his honesty in saying that.Its just people did not latch onto the fact that it could be them who will be poorer.

I see the number of job vacancies has halved.

Too early to see the full picture.Give it a few more weeks. If the Bof E drops interest rates then I will be able to have a dig at others.
 neilh 13 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:

Oh and Lush said employeees could move to Germany and they would be offered jobs if they wanted
1
 Ridge 13 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

> Oh and Lush said employeees could move to Germany and they would be offered jobs if they wanted

Just looked at the news report. Manufacturing for outside the EU has been moved to Germany. That's probably due to the potential for trade tarrifs being applied post brexit. That's a business decision that's related to brexit.

Even if Poole had voted 100% to remain the move would still have happened. The stuff about workers being unwelcome is just spin.

Forced to leave the UK because of Theresa May = bad. Forced to leave the UK because your employers moved production = good?
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to neilh:

News is the BoE decided to drop rates yesterday but will announce today. V odd timing which looks like political influence they are supposed to avoid. RICS indicate house price rises are to reverse. Numerous UK sources of mine say they are being left off or heavily demoted on new collaborative EU research grants (also in the Guardian). Lets hope the new government gets on with repair work quickly.
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

MPC decisions on interest rates are always announced on Thursday.
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Classic Sir Humphry response Never mind the fact the whole cabinet has changed in that day.
2
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Merely pointing out that you're wrong and it isn't odd timing.
 neilh 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Ridge:
I am sure we both agree that whatever the cause it is not good for local Poole employees
Post edited at 11:51
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

And your "news" was wrong anyway, interest rate unchanged
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Not my news... part of several rolling internet news reports; I saw it on The Guardian. I'm sure some conspiracy stories can get running on how that original (flalse) news came about.

Post edited at 13:45
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Failing to distinguish between news and rumours could be a good way to start a conspiracy story.
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Not the only false news/rumour today:

"Jeremy Hunt is leaving his health secretary post, but moving to a different job, the BBC's Laura Kuenssberg reports." Based on a Tweet at 11.20am today.

I'm sure most will be glad the first was wrong but maybe not so many for this one.
Post edited at 13:59
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

I don't really know how to break this to you, but you can't actually believe everything you read on twitter.
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

No shit... the issue is more who posted it, not the medium.
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

> No shit... the issue is more who posted it, not the medium.

So you can't believe everything Laura Kuenssberg says either. Today's full of surprises for you.
 Offwidth 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Sir Chasm:

Well, to misquote Churchill "My dear you are ugly, but tomorrow she shall be sober and you will still be ugly"
 Sir Chasm 14 Jul 2016
In reply to Offwidth:

Then i'll wait and see what you're like when you're sober.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...