EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Gutfright]

And you don't get to decide they want to Leave.

Which leaves us in the awkward position of neither Leave nor Remain having a majority. In which case, status quo wins.

Hahaha. No.

Leave does have a majority: The majority of voters. That's a very important majority which should not be dismissed out of hand.

You are trying to argue that every non-voter should be viewed as a de facto remain voter. In fact the opposite is true.

In the referendum:

17,410,742 people said we should leave.
12,949,258 people said we should leave if that's what the majority of voters want.
16,141,241 said we should not leave.

There can be no democratic justification for overturning the result.

I do find it hilarious all the ways you and TheKnightWho are dreaming up to try to rig the system to get the result you want. I'm sure that a good job in the Kremlin awaits you both...

So do it properly and give the voters a choice between two actual outcomes - not the status quo and a million different imagined fantasies.

Still waiting for an answer to the question on advertising and the media!

We both agree that the media can use all sort of psychological tricks to influence people.

I still think that people should be allowed to vote, though.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that large changes usually require supermajorities

 

[TheKnightWho]

Hahaha. No.

Leave does have a majority: The majority of voters. That's a very important majority which should not be dismissed out of hand.

You are trying to argue that every non-voter should be viewed as a de facto remain voter. In fact the opposite is true.

In the referendum:

17,410,742 people said we should leave.
12,949,258 people said we should leave if that's what the majority of voters want.
16,141,241 said we should not leave.

There can be no democratic justification for overturning the result.

I do find it hilarious all the ways you and TheKnightWho are dreaming up to try to rig the system to get the result you want. I'm sure that a good job in the Kremlin awaits you both...

Some of us have a more nuanced idea of democracy than "the voters said this in a vacuum with no inflexible whatsoever. You mean we don't actually know what Brexit means? Oh well!"

Still avoiding the advertising question? Are you really that sure the media has had no influence on voters despite the £450bn industry that exists that uses those very techniques of manipulation?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We both agree that the media can use all sort of psychological tricks to influence people.

I still think that people should be allowed to vote, though.

Still waiting for any evidence to support your claim that large changes usually require supermajorities, or was that something you just pulled out of your arse?

So you do agree that the media influence people? So you agree that it's entirely possible that people were misled by lies, half-truths and misinformation. The fact that the evidence, based on interviews, shows that issues which Brexit won't solve were often key factors in voting, and that these narratives were pushed by the media and Leave campaign, surely surmounts to good reason to question the outcome? That's not anti-democratic - indeed if you're so worried then honest campaigns should surely reinforce your result, right?

I know it must be hard for you to admit that democracy is more complicated than voting, but then it's very obvious your self-assurance won't let that get in the way of your attempts to smear anyone who thinks the result was based on manipulation as anti-democratic! No-one said people shouldn't be allowed to vote (I explicitly said that). Just like the Brexit campaign, you seem to think of you repeat ill-educated, manipulative false dichotomies often enough they become true.

And no-one said it was a requirement, but the precedent is there. Yet again, you're building a strawman. Status quo bias is important with big decisions, because they need to be done with certainty. We don't even know what Brexit entails at this stage! Every voter voted for a different fantasy constructed out of a multitude of contradictory claims - still going to argue a majority decided what the future of this country will be?

 

[Gutfright]

The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU.

Well I never. A remainer spouting absolute bull****? That never happens.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well I never. A remainer spouting absolute bull****? That never happens.

Get up to date.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/29/uk-warned-calais-border-deal-is-in-danger

 

[AlterEgo]

So how do you propose a population expressed their democratic wishes, if voting alone isn't good enough?

The Leave camp won. It was not the result I wanted, but it should be accepted. Seems to be quite a bit of butt hurt on this thread.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So how do you propose a population expressed their democratic wishes, if voting alone isn't good enough?

The Leave camp won. It was not the result I wanted, but it should be accepted. Seems to be quite a bit of butt hurt on this thread.

With an honest campaign first? I've already said that...

 

[J-2739]

I agree, I think everyone should get their heads around that Brexit means Brexit, and it's staying that way. Some people should be lucky that we live in a democracy, and not some other one party state...

 

[Gutfright]

We could go round and round until the end of time. I think that in a democracy we should have a debate and then a popular vote. I believe that the government should listen to the majority of voters rather than patronisingly dismissing them as being brainwashed morons who don't know what they really want.

And no-one said it was a requirement, but the precedent is there.

You said in post 2694...

Except you're forgetting that point about large changes usually requiring supermajorities. There is a reason for that.

Simple question: Do you have any evidence that large changes usually require supermajorities or not?

 

[TheKnightWho]

We could go round and round until the end of time. I think that in a democracy we should have a debate and then a popular vote. I believe that the government should listen to the majority of voters rather than patronisingly dismissing them as being brainwashed morons who don't know what they really want.



You said in post 2694...



Simple question: Do you have any evidence that large changes usually require supermajorities or not?

And I think the media shouldn't manipulate people into believing outright lies. It's not patronising when those techniques are well-proven and support a £450bn industry. It doesn't make you stupid - it makes you human. I know "patronising" is a nice catch-all for you, but unless you're going to deny all behavioural psychology it's a meaningless apologism for media manipulation.

And did I say it was mandatory?

 

[AlterEgo]

With an honest campaign first? I've already said that...

There was a lot of absolute bull spouted by both sides. Welcome to democracy.

Time to suck it up. We lost.

 

[Gutfright]

Get up to date.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/aug/29/uk-warned-calais-border-deal-is-in-danger

The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU.

Why did you post that irrelevant link?

The president of the region around Calais has called for juxtaposed borders (Le Touquet agreement) to end, and a contender in next years elections has said he would like to see the Calais jungle moved to the UK.

How do you conclude from that that "The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU."?

Arctic Troll's claim was bullshiz, and you know it.

And did I say it was mandatory?

Eh?

You said in post 2694...

Except you're forgetting that point about large changes usually requiring supermajorities. There is a reason for that.

Simple question: Do you have any evidence that large changes usually require supermajorities or not?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why did you post that irrelevant link?

The president of the region around Calais has called for juxtaposed borders (Le Touquet agreement) to end, and a contender in next years elections has said he would like to see the Calais jungle moved to the UK.

How do you conclude from that that "The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU."?

Arctic Troll's claim was bullshiz, and you know it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Eh?

You said in post 2694...



Simple question: Do you have any evidence that large changes usually require supermajorities or not?

It's not 2 months out of date like yours, and it shows a growing argument. You want to tell everyone we can't predict the future just after Brexit? Don't post out of date articles and call those that contradict them irrelevant! It's quite obvious the French public won't tolerate it, and no matter how much Brexiteer wishful thinking you throw at it it doesn't change that fact. You're burying your head in the sand.

And yes - almost every corporation has that rule. Do you understand the meaning of the word "usually"? Are you going to do to that boring tactic you sometimes do of asking for really high standards of proof whilst relying on your own status quo bias to justify not providing your own? Because that would be ironic given the current argument.

 

[Gutfright]

Don't post out of date articles and call those that contradict them irrelevant!

Your article did not contradict mine.

Just because the President of some no-mark region in northern France says that he wants to abolish juxtaposed borders does not mean he is talking on behalf of the French government.

A spokesman for the French government has said “On the question of immigration, to be clear, British exit from the European Union will not lead to changes in terms of immigration treaties with United Kingdom ... These are bilateral treaties,”

If you have any evidence that the French government have reversed this position, please post it.

Otherwise, the only conclusion is that Arctic Troll was talking out of his arse.

And yes - almost every corporation has that rule.

The United Kingdom is not a corporation, and should not be governed as though it were.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Your article did not contradict mine.

Just because the President of some no-mark region in northern France says that he wants to abolish juxtaposed borders does not mean he is talking on behalf of the French government.

A spokesman for the French government has said “On the question of immigration, to be clear, British exit from the European Union will not lead to changes in terms of immigration treaties with United Kingdom ... These are bilateral treaties,”

If you have any evidence that the French government have reversed this position, please post it.

Otherwise, the only conclusion is that Arctic Troll was talking out of his arse.



The United Kingdom is not a corporation, and should not be governed as though it were.

So we should ignore the mounting issue because you say so? The evidence is clear that there is contention over the issue, and it is being courted by the right in order to gain votes. Now, is that manipulation in order to get votes, or is it rubbish that we can ignore? You can only pick one, but I'm not sure the latter has very much to back it up (because, unsurprisingly, 2 days after Brexit the French hadn't decided anything yet).

And no, it isn't, but I don't see why that justifies running it more recklessly than a corporation, does it?

And you're still ignoring the point about advertising - were the media misleading, or is the advertising industry built on sand?

 

[Gutfright]

So we should ignore the mounting issue because you say so? The evidence is clear that there is contention over the issue, and it is being courted by the right in order to gain votes.

That is not the same thing as saying "The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU.", is it?

A spokesman for the French government has said “On the question of immigration, to be clear, British exit from the European Union will not lead to changes in terms of immigration treaties with United Kingdom ... These are bilateral treaties,”

If you (or anyone else) do not provide any evidence that the French government have reversed their position, then people will reasonably conclude that Arctic Troll's claim that the French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU [my emphasis] is bullcrap.

And you're still ignoring the point about advertising - were the media misleading, or is the advertising industry built on sand?

I've already stated that the media can influence people.

 

[miami]

Alas the UK public has an EU decision it deserves, but not the one it needs. I'd like to think the rest of the world will take us as a lesson.

I agree with TheKnightWho and co, that any change to the status quo (which is now we will not "Remain part of the European Union") should require a majority of 50% of the voters.

I also think there should be a tax to pay for the losses of leaving the EU - which can be avoided by showing a social media history of support for the Remain position.

 

[Harbornite]

I also think there should be a tax to pay for the losses of leaving the EU - which can be avoided by showing a social media history of support for the Remain position.

I voted remain but I think this is a crap idea. What if you don't have social media and what if you can't prove that a social media account is yours? Wouldn't everyone just delete their old tweets and type new ones in favour of remain?

Instead you could tax those who voted out but this is still unfeasible and unnecessary.

 

[Gutfright]

I also think there should be a tax to pay for the losses of leaving the EU - which can be avoided by showing a social media history of support for the Remain position.

Does this mean that the money that would otherwise have gone to the EU in contributions can be shared among Leave voters?

I agree with TheKnightWho and co, that any change to the status quo (which is now we will not "Remain part of the European Union") should require a majority of 50% of the voters.

51.89% of the voters chose to leave, so your conditions have been met.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That is not the same thing as saying "The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU.", is it?

A spokesman for the French government has said “On the question of immigration, to be clear, British exit from the European Union will not lead to changes in terms of immigration treaties with United Kingdom ... These are bilateral treaties,”

If you (or anyone else) do not provide any evidence that the French government have reversed their position, then people will reasonably conclude that Arctic Troll's claim that the French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU [my emphasis] is bullcrap.

Suddenly you're very touchy about the exact language used! The fact is that it clearly isn't tolerated by a large number of French people, and it's a growing problem that doesn't look like it's going to be easily resolved. If I remember correctly you rubbished it above, and yet when provided with evidence that it is indeed a problem you resort to pedantics over the exact phrasing used. All I can hear is the squeaking as a backpedal as fast as you can.

I've already stated that the media can influence people.

So why are you calling me patronising for saying so?

 

[miami]

Does this mean that the money that would otherwise have gone to the EU in contributions can be shared among Leave voters?

Yes, once the £350m a week goes on the NHS and all the existing EU funding is met.

51.89% of the voters chose to leave, so your conditions have been met.

50% of the total potential voters. Cameron should have put that in place originally, but he didn't, because he gambled the country to

Another referendum tomorrow may not bring 50%+ voting to leave, however that would be wrong (having referendums until the result goes the right way). The only way of overturning the decision should be 50%+1 of the electorate voting to change the status quo.

 

[Gutfright]

Suddenly you're very touchy about the exact language used! The fact is that it clearly isn't tolerated by a large number of French people, and it's a growing problem that doesn't look like it's going to be easily resolved. If I remember correctly you rubbished it above, and yet when provided with evidence that it is indeed a problem you resort to pedantics over the exact phrasing used. All I can hear is the squeaking as a backpedal as fast as you can.

Nice try.

I'm not backpedalling. I've said over and over again that Arctic Troll's claim is bullpoop, and that remains my position. Arctic Troll's claim is bullpoop.

He claims the French have made it clear that they will not tolerate juxtaposed borders if we leave the EU. It is a claim he pulled out of his buttocks.

In fact, the opposite is true.

A spokesman for the French government has stated that the agreement for juxtaposed borders (Le Touquet agreement) is a bilateral agreement between the UK and France and will not be affected by Brexit.

You have provided no evidence that the French government has reversed it's position.

Arctic Troll was wrong to say that the French have said they will not tolerate juxtaposed borders. They have said no such thing

If I were you I'd disavow Arctic Troll's false claim. He's making Remainers look dishonest.

 

[miami]

Does this mean that the money that would otherwise have gone to the EU in contributions can be shared among Leave voters?

Yes, once the £350m a week goes on the NHS and all the existing EU funding is met.

51.89% of the voters chose to leave, so your conditions have been met.

50% of the total potential voters. Cameron should have put that in place originally, but he didn't, because he gambled the country to

Another referendum tomorrow may not bring 50%+ voting to leave, however that would be wrong (having referendums until the result goes the right way). The only way of overturning the decision should be 50%+1 of the electorate voting to change the status quo.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Well I never. A remainer spouting absolute bull****? That never happens.

I said "the French", not "the French Government", do try and read.

The French government are superficially "standing by" the Le Touquet agreement, that much is true. Although describing the support as anything other than lukewarm would be generous.

The French government are, however, being slaughtered in the polls because they haven't already bulldozed the jungle and torn up the Le Touquet agreement. The terrorist attacks in Paris and Nice is only strengthening support for the French right.

Nicolas Sarkozy or Alain Juppe are likely to win the next presidential election, and both have said that they will tear up the Le Touquet agreement. They will be supported in this by most people in northern France, especially in Nord Pas de Calais and Picardie.

http://news.sky.com/story/calais-migrant-hotspot-french-politicians-under-pressure-10557842

And when the juxtaposed borders are torn down- as they will be if anyone on the French right wins the next election- most experts expect Britain to have to take upwards of 90,000 extra asylum seekers every year.

But yes, what I said is "bull****", even though most French people in opinion polls want the Le Touquet agreement torn up and all the frontrunners for the French elections next year agree.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You are trying to argue that every non-voter should be viewed as a de facto remain voter.

Nope, I'm saying that they should be marked as a "don't know". If you want to change the status quo, or cause significant disruption, you should have to have an outright majority.

The Conservatives have no issue with this elsewhere. Recent Trade Union legislation reforms mean that there must be a 50% turnout and a minimum 40% of all eligible voters supporting a strike before it is lawful.

It's funny, isn't it, how a strike with an overall vote share of 35% is "undemocratic" but a vote to leave on, er, an overall vote share of 35% is "the will of the British people".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So how do you propose a population expressed their democratic wishes, if voting alone isn't good enough?

The Leave camp won. It was not the result I wanted, but it should be accepted. Seems to be quite a bit of butt hurt on this thread.

I think there are two things here.

Yes, Leave won. That result should be accepted. Although it is interesting that it hasn't been accepted in Government, which is why we still haven't left the EU.

However there is a jump from saying Leave won to saying they have a "mandate" and "the British people have spoken". 35% of the British population expressed their desire to leave, a little under 35% expressed their desire to stay, and a little under 30% expressed no preference whatsoever.

I don't think it is "butthurt" to point out that Leave did not have an overwhelming majority. I especially don't think it "butthurt" given the Leave camp, when expecting to lose, vowed to "fight the decision all the way", especially if turnout was low or it was a close fight, before wibbling about how MI5, the CIA and Interflora were going to rub out pencil votes to fix the ballot. Funny how those particular fantasies died the second it turned out they won, innit.

Much of the blame for this lies with David Cameron, who came up with such a cack-handed referendum in the first place. He expected to comfortably win (well, actually, he expected to be in coalition again and expected the LibDems to give him the get out on having the referendum at all). Because of that it became a simple yes/no, with no consideration given to what form of Leave people actually want, and no consideration given if the country is effectively split down the middle. It's about as informative as a toddler saying they won't eat broccoli. A business wouldn't have a vote like this, they'd require a supermajority, and as I've said, the Tories aren't happy with this sort of vote being a "democratic mandate" when it involves a train guard wanting to save their job.

Leave won the competition that was set out, my anger is with the spoon-faced shiny leg of ham that set such a stupid vote up in such a stupid way in the first place.

 

[AlterEgo]

Leave won the competition that was set out, my anger is with the spoon-faced shiny leg of ham that set such a stupid vote up in such a stupid way in the first place.

As is mine. At least he fell on his (pork?) sword. What a legacy.

 

[Gutfright]

But yes, what I said is "bull****", even though most French people in opinion polls want the Le Touquet agreement torn up and all the frontrunners for the French elections next year agree.

So when you said "The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU" what you meant is "Many French people -but not the French government- want to abolish juxtaposed controls regardless of whether or not we are in the EU"?

Nope, I'm saying that they should be marked as a "don't know".

A distinction without a difference.

Under your rigged system, Leave would have to gain more votes than Remain and "don't know" combined. Therefore, every non-voter in effect becomes a de facto remain voter.

That's a hilariously one-sided way of doing things, completely unfair, undemocratic and in fact very authoritarian.

The Conservatives have no issue with this elsewhere. Recent Trade Union legislation reforms mean that there must be a 50% turnout and a minimum 40% of all eligible voters supporting a strike before it is lawful.

You really think that the referendum should have been even more undemocratic and unfair than the Trade Union Act (whose threshold is only 40%, compared to the 50% required by your rigged system)?

 

[miami]

Under your rigged system, Leave would have to gain more votes than Remain and "don't know" combined. Therefore, every non-voter in effect becomes a de facto remain voter.

That's a hilariously one-sided way of doing things, completely unfair, undemocratic and in fact very authoritarian.

I agree, it's the best way to change the status quo though, and the status quo is we should not be a member of the european union. Would you agree that overturning that decision should require 50% of the electorate, or would you be happy with a slight majority in the case of a second referendum?

P.S. To disolve parliament now you need "support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats)", or a vote of no confidence, so there is precedent.

You really think that the referendum should have been even more undemocratic and unfair than the Trade Union Act (whose threshold is only 40%, compared to the 50% required by your rigged system)?

One thing is clear, the majority of people will be unhappy with the outcome from Cameron's political manuever.

 

[Gutfright]

A business wouldn't have a vote like this, they'd require a supermajority

A business wouldn't let it's employees choose who the CEO is.

Maybe we should abolish General Elections?

 

[Tetchytyke]

You really think that the referendum should have been even more undemocratic and unfair than the Trade Union Act (whose threshold is only 40%, compared to the 50% required by your rigged system)?

The precedent is there with the Trades Union Act though. Yes, I think it should be 50% to change the status quo, but Leave didn't even match the 40% required under the Trades Union Act.

The 35% vote share Leave had wouldn't have been sufficient to strike, but is sufficient to trash the economy.

A distinction without a difference.

Under your rigged system, Leave would have to gain more votes than Remain and "don't know" combined. Therefore, every non-voter in effect becomes a de facto remain voter.

That's a hilariously one-sided way of doing things, completely unfair, undemocratic and in fact very authoritarian.

It works both ways, the status quo is now to be outside the EU and if the question is put to the population again I'd expect a majority of all eligible voters to support it.

It's not undemocratic to say that if you want to change something you need to persuade an absolute majority of people to support you. I'd say it was more democratic than many voting practices we have, such as a Conservative government with a vote share of about 25% for one thing.

It's why I'm in favour of second preference voting, as in the London Mayoral elections.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A business wouldn't let it's employees choose who the CEO is.

Shareholders get to vote on the membership of the Board of Directors and on how much the executive gets paid.

 

[miami]

A business wouldn't let it's employees choose who the CEO is.

Maybe we should abolish General Elections?

Shareholders pick the directors, who then pick the CEO to run the place
Citizens pick the MPs, who then pick the PM to run the place
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It's why I'm in favour of second preference voting, as in the London Mayoral elections.

Has STV/AV/etc ever actually made a difference in a large election?

I'm afraid that only 13% of the country believe we should have AV.

 

[TheKnightWho]

A distinction without a difference.

Under your rigged system, Leave would have to gain more votes than Remain and "don't know" combined. Therefore, every non-voter in effect becomes a de facto remain voter.

That's a hilariously one-sided way of doing things, completely unfair, undemocratic and in fact very authoritarian.



You really think that the referendum should have been even more undemocratic and unfair than the Trade Union Act (whose threshold is only 40%, compared to the 50% required by your rigged system)?

Do you actually understand what a mandate is? Because saying it's a "distinction without a difference" points to the answer "no".

Do you understand why status quo bias is important when it comes to big decisions?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A business wouldn't let it's employees choose who the CEO is.

Maybe we should abolish General Elections?

The concept of small-stakes shareholders is new to you?