shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,561
Likes: 1,170
|
Post by shimself on May 13, 2019 21:46:19 GMT
STV an illustration (and a guess)
round 1
Nodeal 38 Remain 45 May/Corbyn deal 17
so now the second preferences of May/Corbyn are used
round 2 NoDeal 38+8=46 Remain 45+9=54
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 13, 2019 23:32:40 GMT
"Control of borders" (by which I guess you mean removing one of the four freedoms of movement - people) is simply 100% non-negotiable from the EU27's side. And how many times have they said that in the past and then changed their minds:
- You can only have a brexit extension past 29th March if the UK has a clear plan of where it wants to go (that didn't last long), and
- The UK cannot cherry pick deals with the remaining 27, all must be treated equally (until they wanted to cherry pick a special deal for the Irish border)
Not to worry, for all those who have been pleading for a second referendum, your chance to record your position comes on 23rd when we have the defacto second referendum. If the Brexit party comes top it will be a clear expression of the will of the people that they want to leave.
PS: I still think your idea for a three way vote sells the leavers short.
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The Brexit party could come top with a third of the votes, which by your logic of a de facto referendum would mean two thirds were against Brexit, and the (holds nose) "will of the people" will be the exact opposite.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on May 14, 2019 0:20:20 GMT
STV an illustration (and a guess)
round 1
Nodeal 38 Remain 45 May/Corbyn deal 17
so now the second preferences of May/Corbyn are used
round 2 NoDeal 38+8=46 Remain 45+9=54
If there is another bite at the cherry then there needs to be a minimum criteria to avoid the same arguments to ask for yet another. May/Corbyn should go to no deal as it is a leave option. Giving leave 55 remain 45. This confirms previous result. Anything else will always give remain an advantage by giving them votes from a leave option. There must be at least a 10% difference to stay for it to be valid reversal of previous vote.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on May 14, 2019 6:47:26 GMT
STV an illustration (and a guess)
round 1
Nodeal 38 Remain 45 May/Corbyn deal 17
so now the second preferences of May/Corbyn are used
round 2 NoDeal 38+8=46 Remain 45+9=54 May/Corbyn should go to no deal as it is a leave option. Giving leave 55 remain 45. I think you've missed the minor detail that the "second preference" is the VOTER's choice. In that illustration, 8 of the 17 people put "May 1, LwND 2" on the ballot paper. 9 of the 17 put "May 1, Remain 2". You're saying their 2nd preference votes should be changed to suit your preference...
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,627
Likes: 4,196
|
Post by agent69 on May 14, 2019 8:05:54 GMT
You can only have a brexit extension past 29th March if the UK has a clear plan of where it wants to go (that didn't last long) Indeed - they did us a massive favour on that one. But that's not a red line. And the government continues to be busy wasting that time. I don't know whether you've looked at a map, but I'd be very glad to hear how many others of the 27 you think the UK has a land border with... Let alone one with the kind of history that one has. Because you - probably deliberately - don't seem to understand how STV works. Could probably do without the partonising nature of your comments:
- Many would have preferred it if the EU had not moved the 29th March date. In any event, they did move it after assuring us that they would not
- Whether the border between tha UK and the other 27 is land or sea is irrelevent. The issue is that the EU want the mechanism for goods and people passing across the Irish border to be different to the other 26 borders. a Again, they originally said all 27 must be treated the same
- I'm fine with the concept of single transferable votes, just no idea why it should suddenly become the system of choice. In your example we are left with a remain option that will appeal to all remainers but a leave option containing a caveat. Doesn't sound like a level playing field to me.
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on May 14, 2019 8:11:44 GMT
Yes, obviously there are many who would have preferred crashing out of the EU with no deal on 29th March. Fortunately, there are grown-ups who actually have the country's best interests at heart.
If you really think there's no difference between a land and sea border, you've clearly never been anywhere near a land border that's been open for decades and is facing closure.
Oh, and thank you for again proving that you really don't understand STV.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,627
Likes: 4,196
|
Post by agent69 on May 14, 2019 8:15:11 GMT
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The Brexit party could come top with a third of the votes, which by your logic of a de facto referendum would mean two thirds were against Brexit, and the (holds nose) "will of the people" will be the exact opposite. I will resist the temption to suggest that it is you that is talking nonsense, as I don't think it helps with adult debate.
If the Brexit party comes top with a third of the vote why does it mean that the other two thirds of voters are remainers? There are an awful lot of Tory and Labour voters who want Brexit, less so in some of the smaller parties. If you want to compare like with like (so to speak) may be you should look at how the Brexit part do compared to Change UK.
So if a party whose sole purpose is to get us out of Europe gets the highest shae of the vote at the next election, are you saying that counts for nothing?
|
|
adrianc
Member of DD Central
Posts: 9,014
Likes: 4,825
|
Post by adrianc on May 14, 2019 8:59:47 GMT
If the Brexit party comes top with a third of the vote why does it mean that the other two thirds of voters are remainers? Which is precisely why the EU election cannot be seen as a de-facto confirmatory referendum. I don't think there's going to be an awful lot of Tory voters. Full stop. But, yes, some will want Leave. But probably aren't hard-liners, because if they were, they'd go St Nige. And some will want remain. As for Labour, the party don't even know what they want - so they certainly can't be counted as remainers. Except for those who are. The smaller parties are almost all fairly clearly hard-line remain. Let's look at the highest share of the vote in the last few national elections, shall we? 2017 General Election. Tory party - very hard-line leave. 42.4% of the vote, 29.2% of the electorate. 2014 European Election. UKIP - single-issue leave. 26.6% of the vote, 9.5% of the electorate. Oh, and 2015 General Election? The one and only "leave" party was UKIP - 12.6% of the vote. 8.36% of the electorate. Yet the 2016 referendum was, as we all know, 51.9% Leave, 37.5% of the electorate. Guess that really does prove that viewing elections as proxy referenda based on the largest party doesn't really work, eh? Still, what's to be afraid of with a confirmatory referendum, if it really is still "the will of the people"? IF. I was having a conversation yesterday with the receptionist in a small car tyre place, while waiting for a slow puncture to be sorted. This was at the very furthest end of the scrotty industrial estate, next to the sewage farm, in one of the poorest small towns in a 2:1 Leave-voting almost entirely rural constituency with a universally disliked seat-warmer of a staunch-ERG Tory MP with a 20k+ majority. She lives on a small ex-council estate opposite a dilapidated WW2 army camp that's now (an even scrottier) industrial estate, next to an industrial chicken farm. In a conversation that started off from me paying cash, through the availability of cash machines (all the banks within 20 miles have closed in the last couple of years, and the cash machine was nicked from a local supermarket over Easter), through crime rates - she raised the subject of the referendum. "So wot's goin' on with this brexit rubbish, eh? I voted leave. Wish I hadn't. We wuz lied to, and it's a total mess, really hurtin' businesses. I didn't vote last time (the local elections) , and I'm not goin' to bother votin' again."
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2019 13:24:29 GMT
STV an illustration (and a guess)
round 1
Nodeal 38 Remain 45 May/Corbyn deal 17
so now the second preferences of May/Corbyn are used
round 2 NoDeal 38+8=46 Remain 45+9=54
If there is another bite at the cherry then there needs to be a minimum criteria to avoid the same arguments to ask for yet another. May/Corbyn should go to no deal as it is a leave option. Giving leave 55 remain 45. This confirms previous result. Anything else will always give remain an advantage by giving them votes from a leave option. There must be at least a 10% difference to stay for it to be valid reversal of previous vote.By that logic the second referendum (2016) didn't reverse the first referendum (1975) so we should remain.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2019 13:26:02 GMT
Indeed - they did us a massive favour on that one. But that's not a red line. And the government continues to be busy wasting that time. I don't know whether you've looked at a map, but I'd be very glad to hear how many others of the 27 you think the UK has a land border with... Let alone one with the kind of history that one has. Because you - probably deliberately - don't seem to understand how STV works. Could probably do without the partonising nature of your comments:
- Many would have preferred it if the EU had not moved the 29th March date. In any event, they did move it after assuring us that they would not
- Whether the border between tha UK and the other 27 is land or sea is irrelevent. The issue is that the EU want the mechanism for goods and people passing across the Irish border to be different to the other 26 borders. a Again, they originally said all 27 must be treated the same
- I'm fine with the concept of single transferable votes, just no idea why it should suddenly become the system of choice. In your example we are left with a remain option that will appeal to all remainers but a leave option containing a caveat. Doesn't sound like a level playing field to me.
Our government asked (no, begged) them to!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2019 13:27:36 GMT
Indeed - they did us a massive favour on that one. But that's not a red line. And the government continues to be busy wasting that time. I don't know whether you've looked at a map, but I'd be very glad to hear how many others of the 27 you think the UK has a land border with... Let alone one with the kind of history that one has. Because you - probably deliberately - don't seem to understand how STV works. Could probably do without the partonising nature of your comments:
- Many would have preferred it if the EU had not moved the 29th March date. In any event, they did move it after assuring us that they would not
- Whether the border between tha UK and the other 27 is land or sea is irrelevent. The issue is that the EU want the mechanism for goods and people passing across the Irish border to be different to the other 26 borders. a Again, they originally said all 27 must be treated the same
- I'm fine with the concept of single transferable votes, just no idea why it should suddenly become the system of choice. In your example we are left with a remain option that will appeal to all remainers but a leave option containing a caveat. Doesn't sound like a level playing field to me.
no they don't.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2019 13:29:50 GMT
Sorry, but that's nonsense. The Brexit party could come top with a third of the votes, which by your logic of a de facto referendum would mean two thirds were against Brexit, and the (holds nose) "will of the people" will be the exact opposite. I will resist the temption to suggest that it is you that is talking nonsense, as I don't think it helps with adult debate.
If the Brexit party comes top with a third of the vote why does it mean that the other two thirds of voters are remainers? There are an awful lot of Tory and Labour voters who want Brexit, less so in some of the smaller parties. If you want to compare like with like (so to speak) may be you should look at how the Brexit part do compared to Change UK.
So if a party whose sole purpose is to get us out of Europe gets the highest shae of the vote at the next election, are you saying that counts for nothing?
you are the one who says it's a de facto referendum, I am just countering your idea that the Brexit Party being the largest minority party converts to a majority for Brexit.
|
|
littleoldlady
Member of DD Central
Running down all platforms due to age
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 1,835
|
Post by littleoldlady on May 14, 2019 15:10:21 GMT
There must be at least a 10% difference to stay for it to be valid reversal of previous vote. By that logic the second referendum (2016) didn't reverse the first referendum (1975) so we should remain. Many, probably most, leavers would be delighted to join the organisation that the first referendum was about. A free trade zone of independent states, no common currency, no elections to the EP, etc. The only really bad point was the CFP on which Heath surrendered to get French approval. Since that referendum the EEC which we joined has morphed into the EU, which is a very different animal, without any approval from the British people.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,665
Likes: 2,989
|
Post by IFISAcava on May 14, 2019 15:17:29 GMT
By that logic the second referendum (2016) didn't reverse the first referendum (1975) so we should remain. Many, probably most, leavers would be delighted to join the organisation that the first referendum was about. A free trade zone of independent states, no common currency, no elections to the EP, etc. The only really bad point was the CFP on which Heath surrendered to get French approval. Since that referendum the EEC which we joined has morphed into the EU, which is a very different animal, without any approval from the British people. If you listen to the arguments against the EC/EEC/EU made in 1975, they are really not that different to now. It was never just a free trade area, and it is still independent states (and for those of us who want it, independent currencies). The people approved the changes via an elected representative parliament, which I would argue is a more effective democracy than referendums (and I would add is widely used by Leavers to argue that we approved the plan to leave the single market in the 2017 GE because it was in the two main parties' manifestos). And since one of Leave's arguments against the EU is that it isn't democratic enough, I would have though the EP would be welcomed.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,627
Likes: 4,196
|
Post by agent69 on May 14, 2019 16:42:34 GMT
Could probably do without the partonising nature of your comments:
- Many would have preferred it if the EU had not moved the 29th March date. In any event, they did move it after assuring us that they would not
- Whether the border between tha UK and the other 27 is land or sea is irrelevent. The issue is that the EU want the mechanism for goods and people passing across the Irish border to be different to the other 26 borders. a Again, they originally said all 27 must be treated the same
- I'm fine with the concept of single transferable votes, just no idea why it should suddenly become the system of choice. In your example we are left with a remain option that will appeal to all remainers but a leave option containing a caveat. Doesn't sound like a level playing field to me.
Our government asked (no, begged) them to! My original commet was in relation to the suggestion that the EU had said something was 100% non-negotiable, and the inference that this should be taken at face value. The March 29th date was changed because it suited both side to change it. However, that doesn't alter the fact that the EU said it would not be altered, and then they changed it when their backs were against the wall.
|
|