carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 20, 2019 14:28:20 GMT
Well, if we're playing this game: "Remain is 12 points ahead of Leave in new poll of how Britons would vote in a second Brexit referendum after May's crushing defeat" Not said by some left wing newspaper, but by the "Daily Mail" (good for them).
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 20, 2019 14:53:03 GMT
The people we voted for to represent our best interests are trying to implement a referendum result that they do not think is in our best interests. The House of Commons may well be unable to solve this seeming contradiction. A large majority will stand in the way of a hard Brexit on 29th March as they judge that to be most obviously not in their constituents' interests. The only thing they can do after that, failing an unexpected consensus forming, is ask the people again in an In-Out binding referendum. It is the fact that the last referendum was non-binding that allows the MPs the freedom of interpretation. Worth reading this:- fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/
|
|
|
Post by charlata on Jan 20, 2019 14:53:08 GMT
"Parliament is about to commit an act of self-harm against the nation. And parliament will face the electorate’s wrath for not working together to sort it out.
The UK is set to leave on 29 March. Any other outcome would undermine trust in the political system"
That's worth a 9/10 for misquoting. You've missed out several paragraphs between the first sentence and the second to make it seem like the 'act of self-harm' would be not leaving on 29/03. Whereas it's abundantly clear that the act of self-harm she's referring to is 'no deal'.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 20, 2019 15:00:57 GMT
The people we voted for to represent our best interests are trying to implement a referendum result that they do not think is in our best interests. I have no problem with MPs thinking that. What annoys me hugely is their almost total lack of honesty. If I remember correctly, both parties at the last election had in their manifesto that they'd leave. What we get now is "we respect the results of the referendum, but we need to Remain or hold a second referendum (and Remain) or let MPs take power over the government (and Remain)".
I'd have had more respect (OK, some respect) for MPs if they'd said "sorry, you made a big mistake and we know better than you, so we're going to ignore what you want and do what we want", but they won't.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 20, 2019 15:05:34 GMT
"Parliament is about to commit an act of self-harm against the nation. And parliament will face the electorate’s wrath for not working together to sort it out.
The UK is set to leave on 29 March. Any other outcome would undermine trust in the political system"
That's worth a 9/10 for misquoting. You've missed out several paragraphs between the first sentence and the second to make it seem like the 'act of self-harm' would be not leaving on 29/03. Whereas it's abundantly clear that the act of self-harm she's referring to is 'no deal'. I'm happy she said (correctly imo) "The UK is set to leave on 29 March. Any other outcome would undermine trust in the political system"
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 15:06:21 GMT
"Parliament is about to commit an act of self-harm against the nation. And parliament will face the electorate’s wrath for not working together to sort it out.
The UK is set to leave on 29 March. Any other outcome would undermine trust in the political system"
Parliament more likely to face the electorate's wrath if we leave with no deal on 29th March. If parliament can't decide, why not get explicit consent for the actual negotiated leave deal on offer - i.e. have a vote on *this* leave, not *all possible* leaves? We can vote again on another possible leave as and when that becomes available. It's simply too big a decision to get wrong. Why is it undemocratic to ask the people now? A no deal exit was barely mentioned if at all during the referendum campaign. Oh, and to quote Nigel Farage, a far-right politician - “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" and he'd push for another referendum. And to quote JRM, "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed."
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 20, 2019 15:11:03 GMT
Indeed Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum if they have confidence in their arguments. All the bleating and threatening from people like Dr Liam Fox suggests that his like suspect that 2016 was a flash in the pan protest vote.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 20, 2019 15:13:32 GMT
"Parliament is about to commit an act of self-harm against the nation. And parliament will face the electorate’s wrath for not working together to sort it out.
The UK is set to leave on 29 March. Any other outcome would undermine trust in the political system"
Parliament more likely to face the electorate's wrath if we leave with no deal on 29th March. If parliament can't decide, why not get explicit consent for the actual negotiated leave deal on offer - i.e. have a vote on *this* leave, not *all possible* leaves? We can vote again on another possible leave as and when that becomes available. It's simply too big a decision to get wrong. Why is it undemocratic to ask the people now? A no deal exit was barely mentioned if at all during the referendum campaign. Oh, and to quote Nigel Farage, a far-right politician - “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" and he'd push for another referendum. And to quote JRM, "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed." If there's to be a second referendum, I think it should have 2 questions 1. Should the country
-Leave -Remain 2. If the country ends up leaving, should it be via -May's deal -No deal
Putting May's hugely rejected deal as a Leave option is a falsehood -many Leave voters won't go for it, even though they want to Leave -parliament has already shown it won't support it.
OR
have a general election, this time with clear manifesto promises on Brexit that are deliverable. I believe that would come down to no-deal Leave or Remain, as there's no evidence anything else can get through the HoC (May can't get her deal Leave through and Labour's Leave-with-all-current-benefits is never going to happen).
Edit: captainconfident re "Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum if they have confidence in their argument" - I don't fear a second referendum (as somebody said, should be easier to win with a slogan of "Tell them again, louder") but a) it's hugely disruptive socially b) I object to MPs agreeing a referendum then deciding in retrospect they're only willing to implement the results if the poor stupid plebs (that's us btw) come up with the 'correct' result
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 15:26:44 GMT
Parliament more likely to face the electorate's wrath if we leave with no deal on 29th March. If parliament can't decide, why not get explicit consent for the actual negotiated leave deal on offer - i.e. have a vote on *this* leave, not *all possible* leaves? We can vote again on another possible leave as and when that becomes available. It's simply too big a decision to get wrong. Why is it undemocratic to ask the people now? A no deal exit was barely mentioned if at all during the referendum campaign. Oh, and to quote Nigel Farage, a far-right politician - “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way" and he'd push for another referendum. And to quote JRM, "We could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed." If there's to be a second referendum, I think it should have 2 questions 1. Should the country
-Leave -Remain 2. If the country ends up leaving, should it be via -May's deal -No deal
Putting May's hugely rejected deal as a Leave option is a falsehood -many Leave voters won't go for it, even though they want to Leave -parliament has already shown it won't support it.
OR
have a general election, this time with clear manifesto promises on Brexit that are deliverable. I believe that would come down to no-deal Leave or Remain, as there's no evidence anything else can get through the HoC (May can't get her deal Leave through and Labour's Leave-with-all-current-benefits is never going to happen).
Fair enough - I'd prefer the referendum option as GE may just lead to same paralysis, and manifestos have many many other issues in them that may confuse the issue as to what people want. Referendum with the two available options mentioned would give a clear answer and settle it - for now at least.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 20, 2019 15:35:52 GMT
1. Should the country
-Leave -Remain 2. If the country ends up leaving, should it be via -May's deal -No deal
Putting May's hugely rejected deal as a Leave option is a falsehood -many Leave voters won't go for it, even though they want to Leave -parliament has already shown it won't support it.
OR
have a general election, this time with clear manifesto promises on Brexit that are deliverable. I believe that would come down to no-deal Leave or Remain, as there's no evidence anything else can get through the HoC (May can't get her deal Leave through and Labour's Leave-with-all-current-benefits is never going to happen).
This is a bad design of referendum question. Two binary questions can at most distinguish between four different preference orderings. However, with three possible outcomes there are six possible preference orderings, and therefore this style of referendum can never correctly distinguish between them. In this particular case, for example there is no way to correctly express the preference of May's deal > remain > no deal. As for a General Election, this has several problems, but which largely boil down to the fact that elections are not designed to select individual policies. People vote in general elections for all sorts ofreasons and relying on a general election to specifically resolveh the issue of brexit seems a nonstarter. It also rests on the assumption that a party would win a majority, which is not at all clear. Finally, of course, the nature of first past the the post means that thenumber of sseats a party wins bears no relation to the proption of votes they get.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 20, 2019 15:41:16 GMT
1. Should the country
-Leave -Remain 2. If the country ends up leaving, should it be via -May's deal -No deal
Putting May's hugely rejected deal as a Leave option is a falsehood -many Leave voters won't go for it, even though they want to Leave -parliament has already shown it won't support it.
OR
have a general election, this time with clear manifesto promises on Brexit that are deliverable. I believe that would come down to no-deal Leave or Remain, as there's no evidence anything else can get through the HoC (May can't get her deal Leave through and Labour's Leave-with-all-current-benefits is never going to happen).
This is a bad design of referendum question. Two binary questions can at most distinguish between four different preference orderings. However, with three possible outcomes there are six possible preference orderings, and therefore this style of referendum can never correctly distinguish between them. In this particular case, for example there is no way to correctly express the preference of May's deal > remain > no deal. As for a General Election, this has several problems, but which largely boil down to the fact that elections are not designed to select individual policies. People vote in general elections for all sorts ofreasons and relying on a general election to specifically resolveh the issue of brexit seems a nonstarter. It also rests on the assumption that a party would win a majority, which is not at all clear. Finally, of course, the nature of first past the the post means that thenumber of sseats a party wins bears no relation to the proption of votes they get. I would accept a 3-choice referendum -Leave with May's deal -Leave with no-deal -Remain only if it was accepted that we'd leave if the sum of votes for the first two Leave options outnumbered those for Remain. Certainly wouldn't accept "most popular option wins" as 30-30-40 would see us Remain despite the vote being 60-40 Leave-Remain.
Very true what you say about General Elections but unfortunately that's the way the country currently operates, we need the governing party (hopefully a majority) to implement things.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 15:43:54 GMT
This is a bad design of referendum question. Two binary questions can at most distinguish between four different preference orderings. However, with three possible outcomes there are six possible preference orderings, and therefore this style of referendum can never correctly distinguish between them. In this particular case, for example there is no way to correctly express the preference of May's deal > remain > no deal. As for a General Election, this has several problems, but which largely boil down to the fact that elections are not designed to select individual policies. People vote in general elections for all sorts ofreasons and relying on a general election to specifically resolveh the issue of brexit seems a nonstarter. It also rests on the assumption that a party would win a majority, which is not at all clear. Finally, of course, the nature of first past the the post means that thenumber of sseats a party wins bears no relation to the proption of votes they get. I would accept a 3-choice referendum -Leave with May's deal -Leave with no-deal -Remain only if it was accepted that we'd leave if the sum of votes for the first two Leave options outnumbered those for Remain. Certainly wouldn't accept "most popular option wins" as 30-30-40 would see us Remain despite the vote being 60-40 Leave-Remain.
Very true what you say about General Elections but unfortunately that's the way the country currently operates, we need the governing party (hopefully a majority) to implement things.
Preferential voting sorts out most objections.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 20, 2019 15:44:56 GMT
I would accept a 3-choice referendum -Leave with May's deal -Leave with no-deal -Remain only if it was accepted that we'd leave if the sum of votes for the first two Leave options outnumbered those for Remain. Certainly wouldn't accept "most popular option wins" as 30-30-40 would see us Remain despite the vote being 60-40 Leave-Remain.
Very true what you say about General Elections but unfortunately that's the way the country currently operates, we need the governing party (hopefully a majority) to implement things.
Preferential voting sorts out most objections.
"Two-round questions - first, whether voters accept or reject the deal. Then, if it’s rejected, whether they want to remain or leave without a deal. You could also ask the questions in a different order if you wanted.
Remain vs Theresa May’s deal vs no deal - Voters would be able to choose between any of the three options. But this would split the Leave vote, leaving Remain to almost certainly win. Most unsustainably, it could even produce a Remain win when the majority of people actually vote for Leave options. Democratically, this is a non-starter and would reasonably be seen as a stitch-up.
Three-way preferential voting - You could ask the three-way question and give voters the options of ranking the options, then tally them up using an alternative vote (AV). This is practically the same as two-round voting and has the same problem – no deal is on the ballot.
There are also extra problems, such as the fact that AV can produce some quite unintuitive results – and the fact that the system was explicitly rejected for parliamentary elections at a referendum in 2011, so its use would certainly be contested."
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 20, 2019 16:32:44 GMT
Indeed Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum if they have confidence in their arguments. What a fatuous position to take.
Are there any other examples from history where somebody won something by a narrow margin and then said 'I'm so confident in my position I'll ignore the last result and we can do it all again'. That's just the logic of a desperate loser, who can't win honest. Regarding some of the other recent comments:
- What is the point of having another general election? The polls show the 2 main parties are about level. All we will get is the same MP's back with the same views and the same impasse
- Why do we need to have remain as an option in a second referendum? If MP's can't agree on a deal by a given deadline, then have a second referendum with just leave options listed. Whichever gets most support is the one that we try to agree with the EU.
- Still waiting for somebody to explain how you get no deal off the table
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 17:06:02 GMT
Indeed Leavers have nothing to fear from a second referendum if they have confidence in their arguments. What a fatuous position to take.
Are there any other examples from history where somebody won something by a narrow margin and then said 'I'm so confident in my position I'll ignore the last result and we can do it all again'. That's just the logic of a desperate loser, who can't win honest. Regarding some of the other recent comments:
- What is the point of having another general election? The polls show the 2 main parties are about level. All we will get is the same MP's back with the same views and the same impasse
- Why do we need to have remain as an option in a second referendum? If MP's can't agree on a deal by a given deadline, then have a second referendum with just leave options listed. Whichever gets most support is the one that we try to agree with the EU.
- Still waiting for somebody to explain how you get no deal off the table
Um - are you serious? if an acceptable leave deal can't be negotiated and agreed on you won't give the option for the status quo to continue? By that reasoning, why did we allow Leave on the ballot for the (second) referendum in 2016 as it lost in the (first) referendum in 1975? And anyway, people do have a right to change their minds in a democracy - or are you saying no they don't? Now many might think that WOULD be a tad undemocratic.
|
|