EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

AM9 · 31 Aug 2019

Howardh said:
It's an idea and I know it happens, but it could be spoiled for a number of reasons from accidentally (eg if you are vision-impaired), as an act of sheer petulance or simply because none of the candidates appeal to you.
If there was a "none of the above" box then that would be a more accurate response than spoiling. If "NOTA" won that seat (!!) which could happen, then they should re-run the constituency election with either different candidates and/or (add) parties I suppose. ...

That's why I said that if there was a sudden increase in spoiled papers, - especially if the premise of the vote was disputed rather than the result based on perfect ballot papers, an enquiry would probably ensue which would have the power to examine spoiled papers that are kept for some time, (I don't know how long though).

RailUK Forums

radamfi · 31 Aug 2019

If some reports are to be believed, the EU are going to withdraw the 31st October deadline, meaning that if No Deal happens, it won't be because they have run out of time, and so there is no point in the prorogation.

Howardh · 31 Aug 2019

radamfi said:
If some reports are to be believed, the EU are going to withdraw the 31st October deadline, meaning that if No Deal happens, it won't be because they have run out of time, and so there is no point in the prorogation.

That's what I hope will happen, Johnson could take us out but as the EU have themselves extended the deadline, Johnson then can't blame the EU. Hopefully if that is what happens, the door will be open for the EU to, well, re-admit us for want of a more appropriate term after a general election. The EU always said they would happily extend for an election or referendum.
After all, it is the EU that set the deadline, not the then PM May. Think she wanted next year? So the EU are perfectly within their rights to extend.
So technically the ball's in the EU's court.

bramling · 31 Aug 2019

fowler9 said:
Totally agree .

I’ve done it a small number of times, however I’m not convinced it really makes much influence - after they read out the numbers of spoiled ballot papers at the respective counts I think it’s something which is then largely forgotten about. It would have to take a *very* conspicuous increase in such ballot papers for anyone to take much notice.

Having said that, I agree it’s preferable to not turning up to vote.

Our electoral system always relies on lots of people having the same idea, which to be fair in my lifetime has tended to deliver results which have reflected the general mood of the country. Whether that continues to hold true is another matter of course...

EM2 · 31 Aug 2019

radamfi said:
If some reports are to be believed, the EU are going to withdraw the 31st October deadline,

I'm fairly sure that they can't do that unilaterally. The deadline, once the initial two year period has passed, must be agreed by both parties.

Struner · 31 Aug 2019

& only at the request of the country which invoked article 50.
& it has to be a unanimous decision of all other member states.

ainsworth74 · 31 Aug 2019

EM2 said:
I'm fairly sure that they can't do that unilaterally. The deadline, once the initial two year period has passed, must be agreed by both parties.

I believe the plan would be that the EU would state that if the UK requests an extension one will be granted without pre-condition. So at that point it's purely a choice of the UK Government whether or not to no-deal Brexit on October 31 as the EU would agree to an extension at any time before hand.

Struner · 31 Aug 2019

Bantamzen · 31 Aug 2019

radamfi said:
If some reports are to be believed, the EU are going to withdraw the 31st October deadline, meaning that if No Deal happens, it won't be because they have run out of time, and so there is no point in the prorogation.

If this indeed the case and Johnson still tries to drive a no deal scenario, he along with his party will be dead in the water.

EM2 said:
I'm fairly sure that they can't do that unilaterally. The deadline, once the initial two year period has passed, must be agreed by both parties.

Struner said:
& only at the request of the country which invoked article 50.
& it has to be a unanimous decision of all other member states.

Any Prime Minister who ignores any offer to extend the deadline to reach a deal when that same Prime Minister has pledged to reach a deal would be dead in the water. The PM may, if these rumours turn out to be correct, been completely outplayed by the EU. And if so, a vote of no confidence is needed because having sat in the House as PM for only a few hours, yet managed to suspend Parliament for nearly five weeks starting in a couple whilst being unable to foresee this possible move, the PM has already proved he is a lame duck.

krus_aragon · 31 Aug 2019

radamfi said:
If some reports are to be believed, the EU are going to withdraw the 31st October deadline, meaning that if No Deal happens, it won't be because they have run out of time, and so there is no point in the prorogation.

Interesting. Do you have a source for these reports?

radamfi · 31 Aug 2019

krus_aragon said:
Interesting. Do you have a source for these reports?

Gordon Brown said this during a speech in Edinburgh and has since been reported in the Herald, Scotsman and elsewhere.

Struner · 31 Aug 2019

As from yesterday's Gruniad:
His remarks were met with incredulity in Brussels, since there has been no discussion of that strategy at all; it was not on the radar. One official there described them as “bizarre”. The EU requires unanimity of all 27 member states on such a change – a process which involves heads of government involvement, and the UK’s agreement to it.

Leaving out the matter that the UK has to beg for it first.

krus_aragon · 31 Aug 2019

radamfi said:
Gordon Brown said this during a speech in Edinburgh and has since been reported in the Herald, Scotsman and elsewhere.

Thanks. A brief dig through my usual sources hadn't turned anything up (and I didn't know to look in the direction of Scotland at the time

).

edwin_m · 31 Aug 2019

Howardh said:
What happens if, in a general election, you have a choice of three (LAB, CON, LD) and none are to your taste? You don't have a "none of the above" option, so if you vote you are voting for, presumably, the least-worst option? If you don't vote are you then considered apathetic or indifferent as you say?

And if we went to PR; would one still be able to vote for the party they want to? Example, would your constituency have a Green candidate, meaning they have to put up a candidate in all 650 seats? If not, could you still vote Green?? Would it still be on the paper even if there was no actual candidate in your area?

Proportional representation is incompatible with just electing one member for each seat. There has to be some system to allow multiple parties to get elected, for example larger consitituencies that elect several members or a "top-up" system where the parties that lose out on the constituency elections get some members added from a separate list.

krus_aragon · 31 Aug 2019

edwin_m said:
Proportional representation is incompatible with just electing one member for each seat. There has to be some system to allow multiple parties to get elected, for example larger consitituencies that elect several members or a "top-up" system where the parties that lose out on the constituency elections get some members added from a separate list.

The nearest you can get is a single transferable vote system, where at least you can express your first, second, etc. choice, and the single individual elected will have at least half of the eligible votes (after however many runner-ups are eliminated and votes transferred on).

Of course that's only "proportional" within that single constituency; party X could still get 1/3 of the first-preference votes in three single-seat constituencies, and end up with no seats (because party Y got 2/3 in each constituency).

ainsworth74 · 31 Aug 2019

krus_aragon said:
The nearest you can get is a single transferable vote system, where at least you can express your first, second, etc. choice, and the single individual elected will have at least half of the eligible votes (after however many runner-ups are eliminated and votes transferred on).

Of course that's only "proportional" within that single constituency; party X could still get 1/3 of the first-preference votes in three single-seat constituencies, and end up with no seats (because party Y got 2/3 in each constituency).

At least it would be a massive step in the right direction!

Of course the elephant in the room whenever we talk about this sort of thing is that any opponents of meaningful electoral reform will just point to the AV Referendum and tell us that it's the will of the people to utilise First Past The Post.

bramling · 1 Sep 2019

ainsworth74 said:
At least it would be a massive step in the right direction!

Of course the elephant in the room whenever we talk about this sort of thing is that any opponents of meaningful electoral reform will just point to the AV Referendum and tell us that it's the will of the people to utilise First Past The Post.

I think the problem is more that whilst FPTP isn’t perfect by any means, alternative systems also have disbenefits. This country seems very fond of its MP/Constituency link and likes decisive results which (until recently!) FPTP tended to give. A proportional system can also give disproportionate influence to minor parties - we’ve had an uncharacteristic taste of that recently with the DUP...

krus_aragon · 1 Sep 2019

bramling said:
I think the problem is more that whilst FPTP isn’t perfect by any means, alternative systems also have disbenefits. This country seems very fond of its MP/Constituency link and likes decisive results which (until recently!) FPTP tended to give. A proportional system can also give disproportionate influence to minor parties - we’ve had an uncharacteristic taste of that recently with the DUP...

I think it's fairer to describe the DUP as a regional party. Yes, they only had 0.9% of the UK-wide vote, but within Northern Ireland they got 36% of the vote, the highest of any party there. (Similarly, the SNP got 36.9% of the vote within Scotland, albeit 3% of the UK-wide vote.)

dcsprior · 1 Sep 2019

Bantamzen said:
And don't forget "Project Fear", the organised campaign set up by remainers to highlight any negatives about leaving & turn them into public fears. Of course this overlooks the fact that "Project Fear" was entirely a leaver invention to try explain away those negatives being highlighted.

I voted remain.

However I recognise that one of the mistakes the remain campaign made was to fail to sell a positive case for the EU, instead going for an approach that depended very heavily on the economic downside of leaving.

The leavers may have been the ones to name this "project fear" (I actually don't think they were, the name was definitely used extensively during the Scottish Independence referendum two years earlier, where the same tactic was used, which was interpreted as being successful when in reality it turned a 75-25 lead to a 55-45 one) but there did seem to be a conscious choice from those leadng the remain campaign that it was better to campaign against leaving than for remaining.

Of course when your campaign seems to be saying that the only reason to remain is continued economic prosperity, a lot of people who currently aren't feeling any of that prosperity don't really then feel they should vote that way.

dcsprior · 1 Sep 2019

Paddy O'Doors said:
I really don't think it would make any difference. I think that 99% of the people that voted leave would still vote the same way again.
It does annoy me when remoaners say "you didn't know what you were voting for" Yes I did, I voted to leave the EU, whatever it takes.

I think that if the choice in 2016 had been "remain" or "leave with no deal whatsoever", remain would've won and won very comfortably.

However I think that since the referendum the vast majority of people who voted leave have hardened their position to the point that if a second referendum were to be held today, no deal could probably defeat remain.

EM2 · 1 Sep 2019

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...vote-michael-gove-boris-johnson-a9087261.html

Michael Gove has refused to guarantee the government would obey rebel legislation to block a no-deal Brexit if it passes through parliament in the coming days.

In an astonishing admission, the cabinet minister said "let's see what the legislation says", when asked repeatedly whether the government would abide by a bill preventing them from pursuing a disorderly departure.

EM2 · 1 Sep 2019

And on the same theme, from pro-Brexit law and policy commentator David Allen Green:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1168108396605857792.html

Brexit, the Tories, and the Constitution

A thread on how we got here, with actual examples

1.
Secretaries of State repeatedly misled the House and its committees over the extent and existence of Brexit sector analyses reports

2.
The government prolonged the current parliamentary session over two years, so that there would not be a Queen's Speech

3.
The government packed committees with Tory majorities, even though it is a hung parliament, by procedural sleight of hand

4.
The government repeatedly ignored and did not even participate in votes on opposition motions

And then disregarded the motions passed

5.
The government sought to make the Article 50 notification without any parliamentary approval whatsoever, and forced litigation to go all the way to the Supreme Court so that parliament could have that approval

6.
The government committed itself to billions of pounds of public expenditure in a blatant bribe to the DUP for support in a supply and confidence vote

7.
The government repeatedly sought to circumvent or abuse the Sewell convention in its dealings with the devolved administrations

8.
The government sought to legislate for staggeringly wider "Henry VIII powers" so that it could legislate and even repeal Acts without any recourse to parliament

9.
The government became the first administration in parliamentary history to be held to be in contempt of parliament

10.
The government stood by when there were attacks on the independent judiciary and the independent civil service

"Enemies of the People"

"Traitors"

11.
The government deliberately broke the pairing convention, in respect of an MP on maternity leave, so that the the government could win a vote

12.
The government gave serious consideration to blocking a duly passed Bill from obtaining Royal Assent

13.
The government has now locked the doors of parliament for five weeks in the crucial run-up to a no deal Brexit, just to avoid scrutiny and adverse legislation

14.
Today a senior cabinet minister refused to commit the government to complying with any laws passed by parliament

15.
And the response of government supporters to anyone disturbed by this pattern of increasingly serious constitutional wrongs?

"Hysterical"

But these concrete examples show there is something serious to be worried about

Something bad is happening, and it has to be stopped

/ends

edwin_m · 1 Sep 2019

ainsworth74 said:
At least it would be a massive step in the right direction!

Of course the elephant in the room whenever we talk about this sort of thing is that any opponents of meaningful electoral reform will just point to the AV Referendum and tell us that it's the will of the people to utilise First Past The Post.

The Tory party had to concede a referendum on proportional representation but staged it a year in from their election, when austerity was really biting and public support for the the Lib Dems in particular had plummeted. All in all I suspect it was a set-up by Osborne and friends doing all they could to make sure it was defeated. But yes, just like the 2016 vote there will no doubt be those who make that argument.

Howardh · 1 Sep 2019

My neighbour popped round and asked me if the "booze cruise" would or wouldn't be affected after no-deal. The "Booze Cruise" is where UK citizens cross the Channel in cars and vans to stock up with unlimited amounts of duty-paid but cheap (compared to the UK) alcohol for own use (family, parties etc - not to sell). I couldn't answer him accurately, but suggested the chances of it being lost and returning to the thimble-full of so-called "duty free" (where your one bottle of whisky you are allowed ends up being cheaper in Lidl) are pretty high. I know he goes on a near-continemtal holiday once in a while (I watch his house) so I think he will be going before we leave to stock up!

But perhaps anyone who voted Brexit and knows exactly what they were voting for can confirm or deny that we will lose our duty-paid unlimited personal allowances??

Struner · 1 Sep 2019

Will be the same as if coming in from Morocco, I suppose?

Howardh · 1 Sep 2019

Struner said:
Will be the same as if coming in from Morocco, I suppose?

Yes, we stand to lose the benefits of being in the EU so it will be just the same. Morocco, Spain, make no difference. The beneficiaries will be those living in Northern Ireland who can take a car/campervan/caravan holiday on the continent and fill up as there won't be any checks as they ferry back to the Republic and cross the border into the UK? I suppose someone determined living in Great Britain could escape UK duty that way, but the cost of ferries would probably mitigate any real savings, but if they were doing that journey anyway, maybe some kind of grand tour, then they could sneak in a van-full of cheap duty-paid alcohol I suppose.

But that doesn't confirm whether we lose those privileges or not after no-deal. Strangely, the politicians have been very quiet on that one. You would have thought Gove, Johnson etc would be screaming it from the rooftops?

AlterEgo · 1 Sep 2019

Howardh said:
Yes, we stand to lose the benefits of being in the EU so it will be just the same. Morocco, Spain, make no difference. The beneficiaries will be those living in Northern Ireland who can take a car/campervan/caravan holiday on the continent and fill up as there won't be any checks as they ferry back to the Republic and cross the border into the UK? I suppose someone determined living in Great Britain could escape UK duty that way, but the cost of ferries would probably mitigate any real savings, but if they were doing that journey anyway, maybe some kind of grand tour, then they could sneak in a van-full of cheap duty-paid alcohol I suppose.

But that doesn't confirm whether we lose those privileges or not after no-deal. Strangely, the politicians have been very quiet on that one. You would have thought Gove, Johnson etc would be screaming it from the rooftops?

Thought we were getting a hard border? Make your mind up.

Struner · 1 Sep 2019

Indeed, a hard border. In violation of the Good Friday Agreement. But then again the English never cared much about the island of Ireland.

ValentaFan1974 · 1 Sep 2019

Sounds very selfish, but I’m not bothered what happens in Ireland. The UK Government has stated they won’t put up a hard border so it would be down to Ireland/EU to put that in.

The EU have created the issue over the border, so they can fix it.

Howardh · 1 Sep 2019

AlterEgo said:
Thought we were getting a hard border? Make your mind up.

When have I said that?

EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Forum Staff

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member