UKC

Well, here we are:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43774200

I don't know if people have the appetite for yet more debate (arguing), change and uncertainty but here's a list of 11 reasons why a people's vote might be a good idea...

https://infacts.org/11-key-facts-we-didnt-know-back-in-2016

I still can't believe that people are happy to allow this national disaster to continue simply because they're weary of debate over it.

It's also a completely counter productive view because Brexit and it's effects will dominate news and politics for far longer if it is seen through than if it's reversed.

Although it also becomes a bit embarrassing to discover that Captain Jean-Luc Picard is your torch-bearer in chief! Is now not the time to admit defeat and retain a little dignity?

Beam me up!

Brian Cox has also come out in favour of a People's Vote.

It's hard to imagine any credible logic behind denying people the right to vote.

We did have a similar vote already, of course, but on very much more limited information. If the popular vote still goes the Brexit way, then the country will be very much more accepting of the result, especially if no campaigns are financed illegally this time.

And if the will of the people were found to be different, in light of the substantial new information that's come to light about the actual deal and outcomes, what could possibly be wrong with recognising the new reality and acting accordingly?

There would be an administrative cost, of course, but in the scheme of things that would not be great, and should this really be a barrier to establishing and implementing the wishes of the people?

Has the right to vote been removed? I must have missed that bulletin. I seem to recall that one of the remainers key arguments is that referendums are not the way to decide complex issues such as this. It’s a favourite trick of the EU to re-run such votes until they get the decision they want. And then curtail further votes. It really does show the arrogance of the remainers. 

Wind your neck in sunshine - you won by 3.8%

It was a fluke.

Oh come on, we've already had a referendum that overwhelmingly backed joining Europe and we saw very tangible benefits from doing so . That was in 1975, the europhobes in the tory party have been wrecking government ever since until they got a referendum that was marginally won on lies, misrepresentations and Russian money. If that;s democracy in action then pigs really can fly. A fresh untainted vote based on real choices is necessary to restore the credibility of our democratic process, not least because none of existing political parties are fit for purpose.

Oops. You must be right. Sorry. 

Or ...what you say is political drivel. 

May’s poor election win secured more votes than Blair’s landslide.

plenty of porkies both sides at last referendum 

My guess is the vote didn’t go your preferred way?

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Who was it said on referendum night that

"a 48-52 referendum would be unfinished business by a long way"

My guess is that you're worried the vote, now the people have better access to more reliable information, might not go the way go want it to. What's in it for you to deny the people their say now?

Seems prescient 

You guess wrong. Didn’t vote last time. No view either way. Just amazed at the arrogance of you guys. What measure of vote for leave would stop you whingeing? 

Yet the very next day he was contradicting himself by saying it was finished business, and has held that view ever since.

Indeed, it was Nigel Farage.

What was it Whitman said about I contradict myself.? 

The only surprise is that you’re surprised a politician says one thing one day and something different another. 

The fact that he said it and contradicted himself makes it no less prescient...as tedious threads here testify 

you will recall the suspicions against having a referendum in the 1970s - the reason then being that a lot of politicians still holding office were deeply suspicious of the mechanism as it had been used spectacularly by both Hitler and Mussolini as an apparently popular way to subvert democratic countries through the people's will.

As was done with Brexit and so a people's vote would be the appropriate way to adjust the result.  Otherwise the people's will is being denied.  Why should the Volkswille now be denied by an earlier plebiscite?

Londo Mollari ?

Will the second referendum debate include information about any changes to our membership if we decide to stay?

How long after the second referendum does the losing side have to wait before being granted a third referendum?

66% on a 66 % turnout

1) An overwhelming number of people want to put it to the vote enough to vote

2) Of that number an overwhelming majority, allowing for signal and sampling noise, dishonesty, whim of the day, current news stories etc vote decisively one way or the other.   You don't risk a safe status quo for noise on the analogue input

Hmmm... what porkies stand out on the remain side compared to the plethora of lies on the leave side?

And what relevance has May's election got? 

I didn’t win anything. I doubt you did too. 

Usual rash of assumptions.

Pompous bullshit. 

here we go again...

Ad nauseum...

Tee hee.

I would hope it would include all changes agreed, as indeed it should. And did.

You bet tee hee. 

I think it's important to be careful with accusations of lies - especially when the whole situation has a such a long and drawn out process attached.

A claim by Remain could would be put forward as a genuinely held belief of threat or risk, but on the other hand could be said to be exaggerated to induce fear in order to drive a remain vote.

A claim by Leave could be put forward as a genuinely held belief of opportunity but on the other hand could said to be exaggerated to induce false hope to drive a leave vote.

The Remain side can easily claim that the figure on the side of a bus was a pure lie, while the Leave side could claim that it was a representative figure based on past numbers and that their actual claims about what would happen to the money were misrepresented. Meanwhile Remain can claim that Leave misrepresented the numbers...

The Leave side can easily claim that the speculation of a slip into recession, increased taxes, 3 million job losses and end of the car industry, among others, was so grossly driven by fear as to be pure lies, while the Remain side could claim that such things might yet come to pass as we have not seen the impact of the vote yet.

To me, the truth is what you choose to see - confirmation bias.  But then it is such an emotive topic that I can see how hard it is for people to stay genuinely subjective.

Well said. 

Indeed a referendum was a terrible way to decide such a complicated issue. However, having got ourselves into this mess  with one I  think a referendum on the final deal with a option for the status quo is the only realistic way out of it. It will be messy and it will be divisive but I see no other  viable option. With the first vote having been 'the Will of the People' only another public vote can reverse that.

I  don't accept there is arrogance or EU trickery in asking for a vote on the deal. Even ignoring the alleged financial shenanigans, the facts have changed beyond recognition  - if indeed there were any 'facts' on either side during the campaign to change - that the vote  will never be accepted as legitimate by Remainers (who as,  you may already have correctly surmised, do include me).

Having taken such a drastic decision on the basis of lies, half-truths, and wishful thinking I can see no logical reason whatsoever for denying a confirming/rejecting vote on the reality of the actual deal which finally emerges. Personally I would expect a much closer vote than some Remainers imagine but whichever way it went it would have to be accepted as the genuine 'Will of the People' since it would be expressed in full and certain knowledge of the situation.

I do not expect it to heal the rifts this whole debacle has created but it may at least help to salvage the economy and the public service that pays for.

But will the second referendum be about the final Brexit deal only or will it also include the deal that the EU will offer us if we stay?

Unless you think that the EU will allow us to stay, rebate, opt outs and all?

And all you have to do then is sort out the political and social problems that a remain vote could cause.

Unless you think that the leavers will see their decision overturned and all will be hunky dory.

Definitely not. I do not see this split being healed within my lifetime.

But as things stand Remainers will never accept the decision as final and whichever side you are on it is hard to deny there is a prima facie case for questioning the finality of the referendum result, if only on the basis of the quality of the 'information' available to voters at the time and the way that so many of what we might kindly call assumptions have failed to materialise.

If the final deal, no matter how disadvantageous, were to be confirmed in a referendum it would have to be accepted because it would be a vote on known facts.  If the deal were rejected and the vote was to Remain it would doubtless be the start of the next round of a campaign to persuade us to Leave. That would be far from ideal but, in my opinion, the lesser of the evils we are left to choose from.

We could have endless referendums based on predictions of what might happen.

There'll always be assumptions, predictions and guestimates but nobody knows what the future will hold.

Whichever way it goes, as you said, there is no scenario that leaves everyone happy.

It could be said that remaining is the better bet due to economic reasons but that assumes that economic factors were the overriding factor in the leave vote.

For many leavers being out of the EU was the main factor.

Somebody said, and it's often quoted but I don't know who to attribute the quote to, that 'nobody voted to be poorer'.

While strictly speaking that's true, as it wasn't part of the referendum question, being poorer might be an acceptable price for the leavers. 

Logic and reason aren't always present when people vote.

Do you really think that legitimises it?

Exactly. That's why I said further up the thread that I think the result would be closer than many people expect. However, I still believe people are entitled to have the final say on whatever deal is reached and that decision, if it were still for Leave, would have to be respected by Remainers because it would be the fabled 'Will of the People' but this time reached in possession of the facts.

However, I do not pretend for one moment that  Leavers would not immediately cry foul and start a campaign for 'Best out of three' and the whole sorry pantomime would go on for years to come. There is  no avoiding that because there is no right answer, nor even a desirable one, just the least of all the evils

I think this is an interesting question actually. The campaign period seems like a lifetime ago now, so it's not always easy to remember quite what the general consensus was then.

It's a fairly well accepted consensus these days that Brexit has few or no economic benefits in the short or medium term, and most in the government have stopped trying to pretend this is the case. But at the time, I feel that the Leave campaign had done such a good job of murkying the waters, coupled with the fact that the reality of Brexit negotiations wasn't yet clear and the self-defeating exaggerated predictions from Osborne, that for many people the economic argument seemed 50/50 either way, and so they ended up ignoring it and reaching a decision based on other factors.

In other words, people weren't voting in spite of the economic damage Brexit would do. Instead, the economic argument was somewhat nullified in terms of it's impact on the vote.

Does that make sense?

We knew pretty much all of that before the referendum!

Maybe the smartarse who wrote the article should have done us all a favour and published it 2 years ago?

The facts were available, some people may have been dumb enough to base their vote on empty political rhetoric.

They would probably make exactly the same mistake if we had a second referendum ;(

I don't see the point of a second referendum. The last one was close to 50-50, and don't think another one would result in a 66-33 win for any of the sides. So in all cases a compromise of leaving the EU but staying closely aligned is required...

Like a compromise between 'jumping off a cliff' and 'not jumping off a cliff' of just stepping off with the one foot.

Eu democracy in action. If you don't get the answer you want, vote again. If you lose it is due to illinformed uneducated voters. If you win, cease elections and rejoice in how well advised the voters were. 

Are the snp allowed indef2, because of the previous narrow margin??

I must have missed the bit about the UK People's Vote being an EU-led initiative. Here was me thinking it was all about UK citizens doing what's best for the UK and seeking to pull the gun away from its own foot. Silly me.

If in the original referendum the vote went the other way, marginally remain, would you be so keen for another vote. Given that remains argument was hardly entirely fact driven either?  

False equivalence. But in any case, a new referendum would not be a repeat of the previous one, rather it would be a chance to vote in the new situation in which far, far more is known about the actual implications of the outcome, as opposed to the unattainable promised land.

Excellent, is that a personal aspiration or a level you can confirm you've reached?

Well done, my congratulations in either case

Not because of that, because the narrow margin shows no overwhelming need for an irreversible change, but yes because they voted at the time no-one saw the UK heading for a fundamental constitutional change going against Scotland's settled course in the EU based on a campaign of disinformation and manipulation of the will of people unhappy for various reasons

I am wholly against the break up of the UK but I cannot see how such a fundamentally changed Britain after Brexit could deny a second vote and would support that vote should there be a wish for it.  Hopefully any such hypothetical process would not be on a 50/50 basis.   50/50 is fine for any reversible democratic process but not for major constitutional upheaval

lack of the 66/33 in favour of change means no change - protection for status quo in constitutions is not an unknown legislative device

There's objectively a big difference between narrowly voting to maintain a status quo, and narrowly voting for massive constitutional change, the effects of which aren't fully understood. Hence why sensibly conceived referendums usually specify a supermajority.

Yes. But in the past 18months the eu has also expanded it's aims of further integration, expand its budget, greater financial control of nations, the desire to appoint an eu finance minister, form an eu army, the Strasbourg farce continues.. and is still unable to control the eu rule breakers in eastern Europe. And that's before we consider where CAP is going, or fishing.

So the eu is hardly static either. 

But the eu is not static, look how much has changed in 10, 20, 30 years. It is firmly set on path of change, that may not work. 

Are these the desires of certain vocal factions or actual agreed EU policy? If the former, it would be like quoting Farage as a representative of the intentions of the UK government.

On second thoughts, maybe that wouldn't be so wide of the mark after all  

Juncker, has publicly said he wants further integration, an eu army etc.. Macron wants the eu to have more financial control and appoint an eu finance minister.

I would say they are relatively senior folk? And not kippers rhetoric. 

So not agreed EU policy then. Thought not, given that we would have heard a lot more about it if OUR government had agreed to any such major EU reforms recently. Always worth remembering: the EU is not "them", it's "us"; something that's easily lost in the usual Brexiter rush to demonise all things EU.

Only the eu isn't really us, it's a small core of central European countries wedded 100% to the euro utterly convinced that more is always better. It isn't the Nordics, or the southern med, it certainly isn't eastern europe or whilst the piggs nations dream of it being them, it isn't. The eu is just eurocrats heaven that they milked and expanded ever since it was a simple coal and iron trading agreement. 

Could you turn round please - I think there's a copy of the Daily Mail sticking out of your arse.

Difficult to answer such a determinedly blinkered position that's wilfully negatively misrepresenting something purely so as to feel justified in hating it more. Nice.

I actually do think all options except continued membership are bad for the UK, but...

... the issue is not binary. There is a range of options from full border control via some trade deals, something similar to Norway (EEA), a two-speed EU reform, status before 2016, all the way up to joining the euro and Schengen.

And unless UK public opinion shifts seriously towards pro-EU, the EEA option is the logical compromise.  

I agree with the principle, but it is a bit late for that ....

If (big if) Cameron had said in June 2016 that the outcome of the referendum implies the country is divided over the EU and that this mandates that a cross-party committee looks in detail what leaving entails and drafts some plans.... then the vote on the specific plan to leave could have been protected with a supermajority.

In reality, the current status quo is that the UK leaves the EU in March 2019 without any deal in place whatsoever. (And this actually came about by parliament voting for this status with a supermajority.)

Correct. Best used for wiping it.

Just because I think trying to merge 27 very diverse nations into one body in the space of a lifetime will be a complete disaster long term, doesn't make me some European hating racist. I do live in Europe in country with one of, if not the most diverse population nationally. 

I think the eus desire to merge everyting will end in tears, bigger tears than Brexit. Europe could merge over centuries, progressively, but fast track is too high. Europe history of wars etc is a reason to tread carefully, not to blindly thrash on as fast as possible. 

No. Nor did I suggest it did. Just seeking a little balance in an unhinged debate

I notice you didn’t answer the question. Would you be calling for a second referendum. Simple yes or no please. 

Ah, as the Dude might say, new shit has come to light. And what new shit is that? That the economists got it wrong? That U.K. manufacturing is enjoying record exports? That job numbers would be at record highs? And that public debt would come back under control. A vote to leave did not trigger recession. We did not fall off the cliff edge.

You mentioned lack of democratic credibility. I mentioned that the scale of May’s vote would be the envy of Merkel. What makes our democracy less credible is that such big numbers lead to minority governments. It takes much greater voter numbers to elect a Tory MP than Labour. I doubt that was your point however. 

The referendum did not create the divisions. It was merely a representation/reflection of their existence. The huge turnout by those who would not normally vote was Orwell’s silent majority finding a voice. What is so arrogant about the remainders is that there only message is for the majority to shut up and get on with their miserable, ignorant lives because they cannot see all the munificent benefits the EU has brought us...l

I don’t bet

Yep. All those who voted leave a dumb. Arrogant twaddle as ever.

I know you think leavers don’t have a leg to stand one. But do U.K. citizens only have one foot? And how many fingers are on that tigger? 

I mean that the phrase ‘you don’t risk the status quo for noise from an analogue input’. Or some such is pure pseuds corner. 

Let me help you with the numbers on that. From the 2017 General Election, for every 41,680 votes cast for them the Tories got an MP, Labour on the other hand required 50,177 votes to be cast for them to get an MP.

Lowest growth in the OECD. We also haven’t left yet.

Easy. No I wouldn't be.

I think you have a good point - those divisions existed way before the referendum was announced. The problem is that the referendum has focused that division around an issue that has bugger all to do with the division in the first place. Brexit will only lead to further entrenchment, misunderstanding and bitterness.

You're either a deliberate troll or you've been inhaling Daily Mail.

Devaluing the pound inevitably will be beneficial to exports, but didn't need a Brexit referendum to implement - all it needed was the will of an unwilling government - the same government you're apparently willing to invest the country's future in. Good luck with that.

The economists didn't get it wrong. Their models didn't account for the rapid and severe introduction of QE, which Carney decided was necessary to prevent the inevitable doom and gloom from ruining the country's economy. Had it not been for that -- which incidentally seems to have been a major factor in the currency devaluation --  we'd likely be looking at something very close to the predicted outcome. As it is, the country, within a year or so of the referendum and even before leaving, fell from being at the top of the G7 economic growth table to being right at the very bottom. That sounds distinctly like a pretty severe negative effect to me, but feel free to ignore it if it suits your narrative.

Job numbers at record high, eh? So why is it that people are so exercised about the damaging effects of zero-hours contracts? And how is the lack of available unskilled labour going to make sure crops are harvested and hospitals are cleaned?

Public debt under control. Are you arguing for more years of austerity until it is?

We certainly did fall off a cliff edge but landed on a terrace part-way down due to emergency BoE intervention and a slice of good fortune that the economy of the EU as a whole is booming, making our own modest efforts seem less disastrous. The rest of the cliff is still looming. Huge numbers of businesses seem poised to migrate HQs and staff to other EU bases, with inevitably disastrous effects on jobs, currency and inflation if they do. The question is: are we still keen to chance our luck in jumping off it?

Edited to add the G7 sentence.

Is this just meaningless twaddle or does it mean anything to you?

How do you inhale a newspaper? 

Historically this has not been the case - only more recently has the balance shifted through boundary commission reviews etc. Here is Charles Pattie of the Crick Centre:

2015 is the first election in over 50 years in which the bias in the electoral system has worked substantially more in the Conservatives’ favour than in Labour’s; indeed, it favoured them by as much as it did in the late 1950s.

As ever with numbers you choose your numbers and gets the result you want

Is this what qualifies as reasoned debate nowadays among Brexiters?

Some of us leavers can only aspire to such a level!

Apparently so!

it was simply a question. And one you fail to answer. Your 'debating' style is far removed from reason. More emotion and ingrained sentiment. stick to b and b.

not a pseud, but concepts from control systems, of which constitutional law is a specie.  Do you find hysteresis to be a pseud's concept?

That's an interesting assumption given that I  never mentioned "those who voted leave"

The facts were available before the referendum but voters on both sides either chose to ignore them or took the lazy option of basing their vote on shoddy campaigning.

specie?

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

total pseud fo sho

roger, out

Fair enough. I understand now that you're either unable or unwilling to debate any substantive issue, so maybe best if we don't waste any more of each other's time.

So how do you measure the percentage of those who based their judgement on reason, and how many were lazy or dumb? What is your metric? Possession of a degree? And how, having measured it, do you think it affected the outcome?

You understand doodlysquat.

Do we need to measure a percentage? I think we all know that it happened and it would be exceedingly naive to believe that some of the questionable campaign tactics used by both sides had no influence on the result.

To be clear, what I find dumb is smart people claiming that these are "new facts" that weren't available before the referendum.

possible wooden spooner?

I think its clear in retrospect what  impact of many years of an ill informed and uncontested  'drip, drip' leave campaign had.  Bent banana, anyone ?

While the bent banana story might have added to some people's anti EU feelings there were true stories like the 'butter mountain' one that probably caused more resentment.

Not according to Open Democracy https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/liam-anderson/voters-per-mp-why-fi...

Conservative 34,244 votes per MP

Labour 40,290 votes per MP.

Still, we've had enough of experts, right?

That was not altogether a bad thing - schools and colleges could get intervention butter to help keep costs down.  I can remember our Economic History lecturer droning on about agricultural depressions caused by plentiful supply of food.   The other side of the cartoon portrayal is an attempt to buffer farmers from ruin.

Remember how little food there was after WWII in Europe - rationing was finally ended in Britain in the mid 50s and people in Europe remembered starvation during the late war years.   You can't blame a European wish to do something about that.   Our memories these days are too short.

I wasn't questioning the EU's desire to support farmers, which is how the food surpluses came about rather than a desire to prevent starvation, but their methods of doing so.

Still, I suppose it's better to pay farmers to produce food, even if it's unwanted, than to pay them to produce nothing as in set- aside payments.

My main point was that it doesn't help the EU to have a CAP which is obviously in need of dramatic reform but appears to be held captive by the French.

Surely this means that on average tory constituencies are of lower population. This doesn't prove Labour mps need more votes, they only ever have to obtain more than the opposition to win. 

In your example above, if you split the imaginary average Labour constituency in half, then they would win two seats with 20145 votes in each. 

There is an argument that city population has grown much faster than rural. Perhaps redrawing all the boundaries is needed and maybe cull the numbers down to a round 500. 

There are regional anomalies, Scotland has large constituencies by area, but much lower in population. So on purely a per capita basis Scotland is over represented in Westminster, but it was done this way as otherwise an mp from northern Scotland would have an area that was just too vast to reasonably travel around.  

Butter mountains, wine lakes and all the rest were back in the 70s/80s - I doubt even Farage remembers those! And those anomalies were exactly the sort of events - unintended outcomes - that the EU has become increasingly adept at managing. We're chucking away 40 years experience of reconciling complex, competing demands to protect the environment, encourage competition, maintain food security and look after farmers and rural communities, for what?

My point was simply a rebuttal of the assertion that more votes were needed to elect a Tory MP, nothing more.

FWIW I think full PR is what's needed as well as reducing the overall numbers of MPs and reduction in the numbers of peers - maybe we could have a system where they are still appointed, but for a fixed time (say 10 years), and a limit on numbers, for both govt. and opposition (say 250 each)

And unsurprisingly it suits French farms very well, where they average hand out per hectare is one of the highest in Europe. Despite not having the challenging climate of the hotter med countries, or the cold of northern Europe. But just like money going to land ownership and not food production here, with say grouse moors, it also goes to vine yards producing wine, which aren't exactly feeding Europe either. 

Or 400 constituency seats. Then 50 to 100 based purely on PR, which would generally go to parties that came second, so kind of an alternative vote. Norway has these kind of floating seats. 

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/moves-to-aid-farmers-as-butter-...

I wasn't questioning the EU's desire to help farmers, consumers and the environment but its CAP and the failure to reform such a dysfunctiinal system only aided, and continues to aid, the leaver"s cause.

Farage might not but I do and many others will, which just goes to show how long the anti EU propaganda train has been running for.

I think this constitutes fake news, or a strange interpretation of 'substantially'.

Votes per seat;

1979 Con 40406 Lab 42871

1983 Con 32777 Lab 40464 (23% more votes)

1987 Con 36598 Lab 43796 (20% more votes)

1992 Con 41943 Lab 42659

Edit: the Blair years were skewed even more, but this just goes to show that FPTP gives exaggerated results in both directions.

The supposedly independent boundary changes proposed in 2016, but not implemented prior to the 2017 election, were put together on the basis of the view that Tory constituencies had seen greater population growth than than Labour ones, supporting this seemingly misleading view that it takes more votes to elect a Tory than it does a Labour MP. Those changes, which I understand are still due to be implemented, will heavily favour the Tories, despite the basic premise of the changes being wrong.

It is not fake news. The Open Democracy ‘research’ is a legitimate critique if the FOTP system and its distributional impacts on parties based an aggregated votes cast. Pattie and others, see link on next post, have long made studies of actual constituency based patterns to demonstrate a bias, broadly, against the Tories. Hence the focus on Boundary Commission changes rather than voting method. In their studies it is the electoral geography not the voting mechanism that is the key. It’s an important difference, but it is not fake news. 

Link to follow as I am on a phone. 

J

Here is the link

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2009/dec/2...

Hope that helps

j

Those numbers have now pretty much reversed, which show it is the system, much more than the geography. 

No it does not. I realise it’s a subtle point, and subtleties can be lost on some people. J

The subtlety of using 2005 data to try and prove a point in 2018, when 2015 and and 2017 data is available and shows the opposite isn't lost on me. However, I call it something other than subtlety.

Given that people are free to move house between elections, the only way to "make sure all votes are of equal weight" is to replace FPTP with PR. Tinkering with boundaries simply looks like gerrymandering.

I actually expected your figures to be well founded. Tories tend to be elected in constituencies with higher voter turnout, and many rural seats are fought between the tories and the liberals with labour a distant third. But in 6 of the last 10 elections the conservatives have had more seats per vote.

Anyway, as someone who has voted for the Lib Dems more than any other party, the idea that the tories are badly served by the electoral system is laughable.

Over the past 60 years, the conservatives have had a seat in parliament for every 40000 votes, labour have had a seat for every 38000 votes and the liberals have had a seat for every 198000 votes. I'm finding it hard to shed a tear for the tories.

After all your excoriating rants about the EU over the last year, all the debate, now the realities are firming up fast you're still claim you're perfectly poised atop that fence, ambivalent? Even on this thread you're framing popular support for a ratification referendum as some sort of EU conspiracy. Cough*bollocks*cough.

It just makes you seem dishonest which you must realise. I can only wonder what you think you gain that is worth paying that price. I don't get it, it's incredible.

jk

Yeah if you get involved ideally well beforehand, raise the issue, demand clear options.

Straight away if you like. UKIP is still on life support, I'm sure it can be resuscitated and marched back into battle with lessons learned. Who knows, in a few years time with a serious constructive plan for the aftermath of the battle they might succeed in winning the argument and creating something good rather than just wrecking it.

jk

No but unhappy in a growing economy is better than still unhappy in a declining one.

They sure as hell will be as soon as the forecast downturn materialises and people start to suffer, when they realise they haven't fixed their problems but exacerbated them.

I met hundreds, perhaps thousands of them in the run up to the referendum and not a single one expressed it in those terms and why would they, being in the EU has no direct negative impact on the day to day life of the vast majority of Britons.

How much poorer are you willing to be? How many people are you willing to see out of their jobs and homes for your vision? You specifically, numbers please. If you thought about it and considered this a risk worth taking how big a risk are you really willing to take, how high a price are you willing to pay for something that will not make a jot of difference to how you live your life outside of the effect it has on the economy in which you do so, the economy that pays your pension?

jk

Any ratification referendum would have to be held on the same simple majority terms as the initial Leave/Remain one for the result to seem credible and be broadly accepted. We can already see the brexit agitators framing this idea as a foreign conspiracy (Ironic given the likely interference of Russia in the initial vote).

jk

You say 'here' but IIRC you live in Sweden and you've said before you've claimed (claim?) CAP for your woodland which I presume isn't feeding Europe either. Are the Swedish grouse moors any good, I've never heard of them?

jk

I'd rather be prosperous after Brexit but given that there are so many gloomy economic forecasts and even if these are wrong there's no real way to predict how things will go then the chances of actually being less well off are very real.

My grandad was Irish and was so made up with Irish independence he couldn't have cared less how it affected him financialy.

It probably helped that he was very poor to begin with but he didn't see himself as gaining or losing financialy but in other ways that meant the world to him.

I don’t really see the comparison with Irish Independence, do you think that the Irish enthusiasm for the EU has effectively thrown away that independence?

Which with respect doesn't answer my question. Sorry, I know it's not a comfortable one but since you say you understood the risk of being poorer when you voted this must be something you considered carefully. What of yours are you willing to sacrifice? Obviously as a retiree with all the locks on pensions and the voting power of the older generation it's not you who'll bear the burden of decline and you've said you can afford to be poorer but many of your fellow subjects just can't, they live on a knife edge. How many others are you willing to see sacrifice everything to be 'out of the EU' whatever that actually means in practice?

That's an interesting story, genuinely but let's try not draw false equivalencies between Ireland's colonisation and the UK willingly entering into treaties with other European nations, an arrangement we've prospered from in an environment we've shaped, not exactly the situation your grandfather faced in '21. How do you think your grandfather might feel about the journey Ireland has taken since joining the EU, that the fight of his generation has been wasted?

jk

My point was that for years after independence the Irish didn't have the best of times.

There was, as far as I know, no desire to rejoin the UK even though that might have been beneficial.

Independence was more important than financial gain - the Irish did in fact vote to make themselves poorer.

I don't usually quote my personal circumstances in order to make a point as all individuals have different circumstances and my position isn't usually relevant.

However, since you asked.

I'm nearly 60.

I retired, as in gave up working, 4 years ago.

Since then I've lived off my savings.

I'm not old enough to get a pension.

I cut my cloth to suit my circumstances so recently I need to watch ny spending but I do know that as bad as things might get I'll never be as poor as I was as a child.

People voted for Brexit who are in far worse circumstances than I am.

I have no idea how they think they will manage if things go badly, maybe there's someone else on this forum who can speak for this section of society.

Sorry, I didn't answer your question about my grandad.

He was an Ulsterman and was delighted with Irish independence as he would be rid of the papists.

I presume that he was elated when the Irish republic suffered.

He was from a different generation and time although some might say that things haven't changed that much across the Irish Sea.

In the case of Irish independence, it was something tangible, especially considering the history and the bloodshed. I just can’t see anything tangible in ‘indepenence’ from the EU.

He'd be glad to know he's made you eligible for an Irish/EU/papist passport

I think it's a grandparent from the island of Ireland to qualify.

Nailed it. That is the difference between leavers and remainers. Leavers think they'll be "free". Remainers realise they are free now. 

He'd never forgive me (if he was still alive) if I applied for an Irish passport    

It's all a perception.

You perceive the EU in a different way than many leavers.

It's been said before but reason and logic aren't always present when people make decisions. Even very important ones. Imagine how boring history would be if people always made the right decision and did the right thing.

Nope, never said I claim any payment for forest, there is not anything to claim. We have what is very low grade grassland, 300m asl, climate zone 4... 20 hectares of rough grass and marsh supports around 6 cows, not a great ratio. We get the equiv for £2.5k for various conservation measures, most of which are Swedish government measures. 

This is because, around 10 hectares are their version of SSSIs with the highest protection. We have annual visits to make sure we aren't doing anything we shouldn't, like using a machine to clear a drainage ditch, they can only be cattle grazed, we need to hand scythe a few hectares too. The rest is for maintenance of archaeological stuff, ancient walls, wells, earth cellars....etc.. 

So not I'm not feeding the world, I'm a conservationist. 

https://www.google.com/search?q=fjälljakt&client=ms-android-samsung&am...

Difference is they are open tundra because the climate doesn't really allow tree growth, not because the national park authorities wouldn't allow it. 

Ps. Great skiing at the moment, lots of snow and daylight. 

The British committed genocide and ethnic cleansing in Ireland through the opportunity given them by the Potato "Famine". The Irish had a good reason for throwing off Bristish Rule. Apart from the straight bananas and the oppressive "red tape" what exactly has the "EU" done to the UK to make us want to gain our "independence" from it?

The EU isn't the Holy Roman Empire or the Third Reich it's a club of similar neighbouring countries trying to maximise their own peace and prosperity. You Brexiters have been sold a cod, and a stinking one at that.

You might want to read my post again!

I wasn't having a go at you. I was just using part of your post as a starting point for my points which I think were corroborating yours  Apologies. 

No history or bloodshed in England’s relationship with the continent at all then? You must be reading different history books.  Independence can be a ‘good’ in it’s own right. And perhaps that is a part of the reason 17 million voted leave. Most on here mock that sentiment as misplaced nostalgia. But perhaps others just value the principle of sovereignty? 

Er we are independent mate last time I checked the EU wasn't a country or an empire. It's a bit much to compare Ireland wanting to leave the UK following years of oppression and being treated like fourth class citizens to leaving the EU. Quite insulting too.

Jesus Christ, I really hope you are taking the piss!

I threw Ireland into the debate.

Not as a direct comparison between it and the EU but as an example as to how people voted for an uncertain economic future because they were so unhappy with their situation. People effectively voted to be poorer.

There is, of course, no comparison between the way the UK treated the Irish and how the EU treats the UK.

The EU doesn't "treat" the UK at all, since the UK is an integral, indeed a prominent, member of the EU, and cannot be redefined in the role of victim, despite incessant attempts to do so in UK press coverage of anything to do with the EU.

If the word 'treat' is all you can find fault with in my post then I feel blessed.

As you will know, it isn't the word that's the problem, it's the concept the word represents. And it really isn't a matter of finding fault; rather of pointing out a seemingly skewed perception of the UK's place in relation to the EU that doesn't bear scrutiny (but is very commonly propagated by unhelpful press.)

As I said at 18.08 yesterday, Brexit itself is a perception which might be why seemingly intelligent people who might agree on many other things have been arguing vehemently for and against us leaving the EU, often in the face of quite compelling evidence and opinion.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-856X.00008

Again data is older than OD stuff you cite. But this paper and others like them, difficult though they can be to grasp, show the complexity of the relationship between geographies, voting methods, and results. I was simply trying to show that the system had, and may yet still be, biased against the Tories. And no, I am not a Tory voter. Neither are Pattie or Dorling.

Rubbish as usual. As if the press speaks with one voice. Newspapers often disagree not only with one another, but with themselves, carrying different opnions throughout. The same facile bollocks that blames the result on a biased media! 

Out of you?

Not for much longer. 

Your puerile attempts to get a rise out of people seem to be becoming less effective. Maybe time to retreat under the bridge?

I think you should ????

Brexiters, when voting to leave the EU, didn't vote for independence any more than if they decide to vote to leave NATO, the WTO, the United Nations or the Commonwealth. It was a vote for isolation not independence. If we were not free to act as an independent nation, on our own behalf, how come we could choose to bomb Syria last week. Surely we would have had to ask "our masters in Brussels". 

It's perfectly simple to grasp. It supports the view that biases of the system change over time due to a of number factors. The fixed factor being the electoral system. It shows the system has biased towards both parties at different times. It is clear that in the last two elections that bias has been towards the Tories. In short, your original assertion that it takes more votes to elect a Tory MP now is clearly wrong. The quote you attribute to Pattie supports my view, although if you have correctly quoted him, the suggestion that the bias was toward Labour in the 1980s seems somewhat at odds with the figures.

The only time ~I mentioned independence was in relation to supporting a hypothetical vote in Scotland following the complete change of course of the UK as a whole, not part of the deal that was on the table when the vote was taken in 2014.

Not sure why 2 of you are lecturing me about it

Somebody else was comparing brexit to Irish independence saying independence was a precious thing even if it made you poor ... 

I wonder what they think happens to those already poor ...

You distort my original comment. The reality is that until recently the bias has favoured Labour. Your use of aggregated stars miss the point. It’s the impact of constituency composition that is key to the relative ‘effuciency’ of voting behaviour. It is true that more recent studies show the trend changing. But this can have nothing to do with voting system as this has remained FPTP throughout. Logic dictates that some other factor/s are at work here which is what Pattie et al are attempting to explain. 

Isn't the biggest problem the very large proportion who don't vote at all. 

yes, they let everyone down in an electoral sense, but I think that for an issue like Brexit If you don't have a clear idea of how to vote it's not logical or desirable to try and pull something out of the air "or lose your say".

That's why a quorate referendum is a protection for the status quo as a low turnout shows a large number of undecided voters who aren't convinced even on a balance of probabilities that we should make constitutional change.   My wife tells me that in Germany you first have a referendum on whether the issue should be put to the vote - so you determine whether there is a wish for change in the first place.    This could be done without campaigning of course as it is a procedural issue to test the feeling before the substantive issue is shouted about from the rooftops in hot blood. The trouble is that now campaigning and conditioning can start on social media without people reallizing it.

My wife knows 2 people in this very rural area (no pub/shop/school/post office/bus service here) who voted for Brexit over anger, one because she'd heard that immigrants were preventing ex soldiers getting housing and rendering them homeless (strangely her boyfriend is an ex soldier) and another because she heard that asylum seekers and immigrants from Eastern Europe were committing really bad crimes.    Both families use social media a lot for everyday communication, which I suppose is why they know a lot more about what is going on in the world than we do.

Both families use social media a lot for everyday communication, which I suppose is why they "know" a lot more about what is going on in the world than we do.

Fixed that for you.

thanks ! my intentional meaning, improved.

Not been on Ukc for a while and still remoaners whinging on, Yes i am a brexiteer but i voted to join in 1975, so i have been around long enough to see this train crash develop. you ever noticed the BBC never show whats going on with our european members Greece is bankrupt, France as we speak nearly on a general strike, look at Italy Spain Portugal etc if you google any of the EEC countrys you will find nearly all are in a bad way the ECB is still printing money to prop up this failing economy i do think we will end up staying in, and we will see a the national disaster you talk about when the bubble bursts.

We have been in the club now for 40 plus years the NHS. Roads. Housing. Immigration. are all in a mess, and this is while we are IN, it's not working and never will

Gobsmacking!

In my view you have thereby given up any right to have anything you say on the matter taken seriously.

To be fair to Mr Yates, whether he voted in the referendum is irrelevant. Democracy is about much more than just voting, something that appears to have passed many people by, not least those saying “you lost get over it” or suggesting that any campaigning against Brexit is undemocratic or even anti democratic. However, I’m happy to point out that he is talking garbage and being utterly dishonest and childish in his approach.

Make it so