IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 17:16:48 GMT
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."
By definition preferential voting doesn't split votes, and the outcome has to be supported by more than 50% of those voting. The arguments against it for the parliamentary system would not apply to a straightforward set of options for Brexit, I would argue. Most people will have a clear set of preferences (might be Remain>May's deal>no deal, or No deal>May's deal>Remain or even No deal>Remain>May's deal) and if they only want one option then they don't have to express a second or third choice. I can't see what the objection would be to that system in a referendum - how can it be unintuitive?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2,902
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 20, 2019 17:17:08 GMT
TM needs to send tanks to parliment to prevent a coup taking place. MPs allowed out but nobody allowed in.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 20, 2019 17:27:43 GMT
"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."
Fortunately, no-one has ever seriously proposed a three way first past the post referendum - it exists solely as a straw man to be beaten down in articles such as this. I notice the description of three-way preferential voting claims it is virtually the same as two-round, but in fact it is not, and does not have the same fatal flaws I highlighted in my previous post.
The only plausible method for a three choice referendum would be preference voting. The alternative, more sensible, option would be two-way, May's deal vs Remain.
As for agent69 request for an example, the decision by the conservative government in 2017 to call a general election springs immediately to mind.
EDIT: As for getting no-deal off the table, this can be done straightforwardly by passing a bill stating that the default position if no deal is reached by 28/3 is to immediately issue a revocation of the article 50 notification. There is no question this is possible, it is simply viewed as politically undesireable by some, which is not at all the same thing.
|
|
carolus
Member of DD Central
Posts: 204
Likes: 191
|
Post by carolus on Jan 20, 2019 17:31:20 GMT
TM needs to send tanks to parliment to prevent a coup taking place. MPs allowed out but nobody allowed in. I hope this is a joke - this is ridiculous and reckless language. There is no sense in which any sort of "coup" is taking place, and if you think there is then you might like to read up on coups from history (hint: they often start with tanks being sent to Parliaments).
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,445
Likes: 2,902
|
Post by michaelc on Jan 20, 2019 20:42:05 GMT
TM needs to send tanks to parliment to prevent a coup taking place. MPs allowed out but nobody allowed in. I hope this is a joke - this is ridiculous and reckless language. There is no sense in which any sort of "coup" is taking place, and if you think there is then you might like to read up on coups from history (hint: they often start with tanks being sent to Parliaments). Sadly, it is neither a joke nor a "troll" as they say. I would give your opinion more respect than using the adjectives you have applied to mine although I do understand that because I was using my phone at the time, I wasn't able to write much more than I did. In my opinion, what is happening right now is far more important than leave/remain or any other issue. It goes to the heart of what this nation has been for a very long time - democratic. It has frankly amazed me that so many politicians and members of society seem to have put the issue of the day as more important than the democratic process itself. Parliment is indeed sovereign and can largely do as it wishes including changing past decisions but it is not a collective dictator. It is answerable to the people. I truly believe that if some parliamentarians believe the issue of the day is more important than the democratic process and are plotting a silent coup the PM may have few options. If push comes to shove, then yes government should prevent such a coup by force if it comes to it.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 20, 2019 20:52:53 GMT
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.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,952
Likes: 4,386
|
Post by agent69 on Jan 20, 2019 21:11:34 GMT
As for agent69 request for an example, the decision by the conservative government in 2017 to call a general election springs immediately to mind. Hardly an equivalent situation. The current scenario is that people who narrowly lost out think that the winners should be magnanimous and give them another chance. The 2107 election wasn't called because of Labour pressure, it was called by an avaricious PM trying to increase her power base.
I agree that making remain the default position will remove no deal from the table (I posted this earlier), but I think this is the only way, and it would be a brave party leader to support this. However, it is by no means clear whether anyone other than the government can make the necessary changes to the legislation, and we would also need to do it in a way that meets with the approval of the EU (the European court decision that we could revoke unilaterally was subject to certain caveats.)
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 22:35:18 GMT
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? acceptable to who? and why should the status quo continue when the majority have voted to change it?- A deal acceptable to MPs and the electorate. And voting to change something is meaningless if you can't agree what you are going to change it to. 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? The suggestion is that we should re-run the 2016 leave referendum. 2016 wasn't a re-run of 1975 as they were about different things (one was to join and one was to leave)- Not true - we joined in 1973. Both were stay or leave votes from a position of being members. 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.no problem with people changing their minds, but that doesn't entitle you to wind the clock back and start again. Look at the Labour ledership election that gave JC the top job. There were several Labour MP's who didn't want JC as leader but thought that supporting his nomination would broaden debate. They bitterly regret what they did, but it's too late to change things. It doesn't matter that more than 80% of Labour MP's voted against JC in the June 2016 no confidence motion, they can't get rid of him (I bet JC would love to be in TM's position, where only a third of the party want rid of you)- It's not starting again - it's trying to get to a settled position. We now have a negotiated deal, and/or the recent suggestion of a no deal exit, to consider. Not sure what the relevance of Labour messing up its leadership election is.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 20, 2019 22:44:36 GMT
As for agent69 request for an example, the decision by the conservative government in 2017 to call a general election springs immediately to mind. Hardly an equivalent situation. The current scenario is that people who narrowly lost out think that the winners should be magnanimous and give them another chance. The 2107 election wasn't called because of Labour pressure, it was called by an avaricious PM trying to increase her power base.
I agree that making remain the default position will remove no deal from the table (I posted this earlier), but I think this is the only way, and it would be a brave party leader to support this. However, it is by no means clear whether anyone other than the government can make the necessary changes to the legislation, and we would also need to do it in a way that meets with the approval of the EU (the European court decision that we could revoke unilaterally was subject to certain caveats.)
No - it's not being given another chance (though that's what Farage wanted in a 52-48 situation) it's allowing people to decide after seeing what has actually happened - i.e. the actual leaves on the table (May's deal or no deal) - which is what Rees-Mogg suggested. I would say it would be a brave person to allow a no deal exit in 68 days time.
|
|
JamesFrance
Member of DD Central
Port Grimaud 1974
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 897
|
Post by JamesFrance on Jan 21, 2019 7:38:15 GMT
Those politicians trying desperately to remain keep parrotting "No deal would be a disaster" and always refer to crashing out and bang on about falling over cliffs.
I don't believe there is a shred of evidence to support their claims, indeed just getting on with leaving would mean immediate deals with EU countries the moment their businesses start being expected to stop their trading and bring mass unemployment and loss of GDP to their own country. Just get on with it and stop further years of uncertainty for businesses throughout the EU, it has been going on for far too long already, ever since Cameron announczd the referendum.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 21, 2019 13:02:59 GMT
Those politicians trying desperately to remain keep parrotting "No deal would be a disaster" and always refer to crashing out and bang on about falling over cliffs.
I don't believe there is a shred of evidence to support their claims, indeed just getting on with leaving would mean immediate deals with EU countries the moment their businesses start being expected to stop their trading and bring mass unemployment and loss of GDP to their own country. Just get on with it and stop further years of uncertainty for businesses throughout the EU, it has been going on for far too long already, ever since Cameron announczd the referendum.
Unfortunately relying on belief systems is one of the main problems with the Brexit mess. There's a mass of evidence, from many sources; if you choose not to believe it just realise that is what you are doing.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,324
|
Post by registerme on Jan 21, 2019 13:25:19 GMT
JamesFrance how do you see the UK getting "immediate" trade deals with the EU when trade is an EU competency and any trade deal would need to be negotiated on behalf of the EU as a whole and ratified by 27 member states? Presumably after we've flounced out and refused to pay our exit bill? Liam Fox and his erstwhile Department of International Trade (or whatever it is called) have achieved precisely >>nothing<< in the two years it's been running. Liam Fox - "Let's have a trade deal"! Other country - "Great idea, what's your relationship with the EU going to be"? Liam Fox - "Don't know". Other country - "OK, come back and talk to us when you do know". Liam Fox - .....
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 21, 2019 13:51:20 GMT
JamesFrance how do you see the UK getting "immediate" trade deals with the EU when trade is an EU competency and any trade deal would need to be negotiated on behalf of the EU as a whole and ratified by 27 member states? Presumably after we've flounced out and refused to pay our exit bill? Liam Fox and his erstwhile Department of International Trade (or whatever it is called) have achieved precisely >>nothing<< in the two years it's been running. Liam Fox - "Let's have a trade deal"! Other country - "Great idea, what's your relationship with the EU going to be"? Liam Fox - "Don't know". Other country - "OK, come back and talk to us when you do know". Liam Fox - ..... >takes deeeeeeep breath< Because the EU is DESPERATE for our £39b plus our ongoing trade. I wish people would stop being so negative. Do you really think 27 member states are needed to decide EU trade policy/deals? 25 of them are absolutely irrelevant, they do as they are told or they have their funding stopped. Very very simple. All these EXPERTS scare-mongering are much the same as those that said we MUST JOIN THE EURO. This is now a small number of weasel MPs vs the public. Any second referendum (for those dreaming of one) will be massively pro-leave. British Pride isnt going to back down on this and only those politicians so out-of-touch with reality are still calling for one. It is time to let the EU know that we are leaving with no deal on 29 March and we will keep our £39b until a deal is found.
|
|
ilmoro
Member of DD Central
'Wondering which of the bu***rs to blame, and watching for pigs on the wing.' - Pink Floyd
Posts: 11,221
Likes: 11,417
|
Post by ilmoro on Jan 21, 2019 13:55:07 GMT
JamesFrance how do you see the UK getting "immediate" trade deals with the EU when trade is an EU competency and any trade deal would need to be negotiated on behalf of the EU as a whole and ratified by 27 member states? Presumably after we've flounced out and refused to pay our exit bill? Liam Fox and his erstwhile Department of International Trade (or whatever it is called) have achieved precisely >>nothing<< in the two years it's been running. Liam Fox - "Let's have a trade deal"! Other country - "Great idea, what's your relationship with the EU going to be"? Liam Fox - "Don't know". Other country - "OK, come back and talk to us when you do know". Liam Fox - ..... Nothing? So no bilateral deal for post Brexit agreed with the EU's current 3rd largest trading partner, no extension of the current EU MRU deal with Aus.
Much else, possibly not, though quite a lot going on beyond the scenes shifting EU agreements into bilateral agreements. eg WTO transition since Oct 2016 IIRC. Actual trade deals of course cant be done while we're in the CU.
(Right, back in my box.)
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,532
Likes: 6,324
|
Post by registerme on Jan 21, 2019 14:12:47 GMT
|
|