EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Gutfright]

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

Look at the text I was responding to. Your question about mandates is irrelevant.

Do you understand why status quo bias is important when it comes to big decisions?

I understand why you think it's important. I'm not convinced that status quo bias is intrinsically "important" though.

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

You guys are determined to torture this Britain is a business analogy to death, aren't you?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Look at the text I was responding to. Your question about mandates is irrelevant.




I understand why you think it's important. I'm not convinced that status quo bias is intrinsically "important" though.



You guys are determined to torture this Britain is a business analogy to death, aren't you?

No it isn't. You interpreted it as saying that they should be de facto remainers, but if you actually look at it in the context of the rest of my post - which talks about status quo bias - it's very obvious why it's very relevant. Your first and second responses here seem very odd when juxtaposed, because you don't seem to see why either of them matter, and yet never put two and two together to see a link between them and how that's what matters here.

And no - Britain is not a business. That does not mean we can chuck all precedent for large organisations out of the window simply because it suits what your gut feeling tells you is best for the country (despite mounting evidence to the contrary).

 

[ianhr]

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.

I agree with you about Cameron but Parliament is culpable too. They passed the legislation that authorised the Referendum.

In the Committee stage Alex Salmond proposed an amendment that since the UK is a multinational state there should be a quadruple lock, i.e. each constituent nation would have to demonstrate a majority for 'Leave' for the result to have any effect. The House of Lords proposed that 16/17 year olds should be allowed to vote on the grounds of the long term impact on their futures. Neither of these amendments was passed, yet if either or both had been the result might well have been different.

It is Parliament that is sovereign, not the electorate, and Parliament derives it's sovereignty from the 2015 General Election. We now have a Government about to pursue radically different policies from those upon which they were elected. May has boxed herself into a corner by spending >2 months now parroting "Brexit means Brexit" and "Britain open for business".The weakness of the UK's position has been exposed by the recent G20 talks in China. The interview with the Australian Trade Minister on the Today program this morning will have been uncomfortable listening for the Brexiters too as one of the more naive ideas they have been promoting is that trade with nasty Europe can be replaced by trade with friendly Australia. I am not sure what they think we will do with a ship load of iron ore as we have no means of smelting it and turning it into motor cars.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I agree with you about Cameron but Parliament is culpable too. They passed the legislation that authorised the Referendum.

In the Committee stage Alex Salmond proposed an amendment that since the UK is a multinational state there should be a quadruple lock, i.e. each constituent nation would have to demonstrate a majority for 'Leave' for the result to have any effect. The House of Lords proposed that 16/17 year olds should be allowed to vote on the grounds of the long term impact on their futures. Neither of these amendments was passed, yet if either or both had been the result might well have been different.

It is Parliament that is sovereign, not the electorate, and Parliament derives it's sovereignty from the 2015 General Election. We now have a Government about to pursue radically different policies from those upon which they were elected. May has boxed herself into a corner by spending >2 months now parroting "Brexit means Brexit" and "Britain open for business".The weakness of the UK's position has been exposed by the recent G20 talks in China. The interview with the Australian Trade Minister on the Today program this morning will have been uncomfortable listening for the Brexiters too as one of the more naive ideas they have been promoting is that trade with nasty Europe can be replaced by trade with friendly Australia. I am not sure what they think we will do with a ship load of iron ore as we have no means of smelting it and turning it into motor cars.

I'll tell you why: the Conservatives were only thinking about their own backsides. A quadruple lock would have caused insurrection in England with the result we got, with Scotland almost certainly having another referendum now, and the situation in Northern Ireland would be a total nightmare.

As for 16/17 year olds, they didn't want the precedent for them voting at all as that could lead to them voting in 2020.

 

[Gutfright]

No it isn't. You interpreted it as saying that they should be de facto remainers, but if you actually look at it in the context of the rest of my post - which talks about status quo bias - it's very obvious why it's very relevant. Your first and second responses here seem very odd when juxtaposed, because you don't seem to see why either of them matter, and yet never put two and two together to see a link between them and how that's what matters here.

And no - Britain is not a business. That does not mean we can chuck all precedent for large organisations out of the window simply because it suits what your gut feeling tells you is best for the country (despite mounting evidence to the contrary).

I can't help but feel partly responsible for you misunderstanding what is going on.

It stems from post 2725, when I was quoting Arctic Troll I accidentally left an extra sentence in the quote box (I've gone back and edited it out now) This has obviously contributed to you getting the wrong end of the stick.

A brief synopsis of the relevant thread of the conversation...

Arctic Troll: I think we should require a majority of the electorate to agree before we make a change.
Gutfright: If you do that, you're effectively saying that non-voters are voting for the status quo.
AT: I'm saying non-voters are voting "don't know".
G: A distinction without a difference. Not voting has the same effect as voting for the status quo.

And that's where you jumped in.

So no, your question about mandates was not relevant to the issue of whether, in the system Arctic Troll described, there is any practical difference between voting for the status quo and not voting at all.

But I am glad you agree that Britain is not a business. Hopefully you'll agree that just saying "well businesses do it" is not, on its own, reason enough for Britain to do something?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I can't help but feel partly responsible for you misunderstanding what is going on.

It stems from post 2725, when I was quoting Arctic Troll I accidentally left an extra sentence in the quote box (I've gone back and edited it out now) This has obviously contributed to you getting the wrong end of the stick.

A brief synopsis of the relevant thread of the conversation...

Arctic Troll: I think we should require a majority of the electorate to agree before we make a change.
Gutfright: If you do that, you're effectively saying that non-voters are voting for the status quo.
AT: I'm saying non-voters are voting "don't know".
G: A distinction without a difference. Not voting has the same effect as voting for the status quo.

And that's where you jumped in.

So no, your question about mandates was not relevant to the issue of whether, in the system Arctic Troll described, there is any practical difference between voting for the status quo and not voting at all.

But I am glad you agree that Britain is not a business. Hopefully you'll agree that just saying "well businesses do it" is not, on its own, reason enough for Britain to do something?

I agree that that's what went on, but mandates are more nuanced than "more people said this". Which is why I asked.

 

[Tetchytyke]

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.

My preference remains PR for parliaments, but in cases where you can only have one person win (e.g. the London Mayoral election) AV works because- eventually- the one who wins has to have the majority of people backing them.

I've seen it make a difference in student union elections (whether you think that's a fair example is up to you!) but it isn't done enough in the real world to really tell. It does have some impact in Australian elections.

The weakness of the UK's position has been exposed by the recent G20 talks in China.

The problem is that it hasn't been exposed to the people who it needs to be exposed to. The Brexit lot seem to be still spouting the line that "Britain is open for business" and that this sole fact means nothing will change.

We are open for business, we'll trade with anyone, but the Brexit assumption is that it is still 1876 and the world will be queuing up for our stuff.#

We're not going to fall into penury with Brexit, but our negotiating position will be weak. It is clear that if we want to keep business we need the common market, but if we're not an EU member we don't have the final say on what the common market dictates to us. So we'll still have all the EU rules and regulations, we'll just be sat outside the tent clipping our toenails when the decisions about what those rules and regulations actually are gets made. Which is all fine and dandy, but it's not "taking back control", so one has to question what the bloody point of the whole thing actually was.

If we genuinely do "take back control" then we're going to find very very quickly that all our major trading partners can carry on just fine without us. They need nothing we sell, and what we buy from them is a tiny percentage of their GDP, so there's no desperate need to sign favourable trade agreements. The Australians and the US have made this very clear: it's not malice, it's just that we're not very important if we're on our own.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm coming round to the idea of AV simply because it means no wasted votes. The results of FPTP elections are skewed by people thinking that voting for the small guy is a wasted vote.

 

[miami]

If we genuinely do "take back control" then we're going to find very very quickly that all our major trading partners can carry on just fine without us. They need nothing we sell, and what we buy from them is a tiny percentage of their GDP, so there's no desperate need to sign favourable trade agreements. The Australians and the US have made this very clear: it's not malice, it's just that we're not very important if we're on our own.

Why don't we find our closest trade partners and form some kind of trade block with them, meaning we all benefit? Obviously we'd need some rules to ensure it's a level playing field - no state aid, everyone using the same tariffs, common management of resources, common trade agreements outside of the block, etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Why don't we find our closest trade partners and form some kind of trade block with them, meaning we all benefit?

A union of our closest and most significant trading partners in Europe you mean?

It's a great idea, we could call it the European Uni...oh

 

[ianhr]

Japan's Message to the UK and the EU.

This rather long but well worth a read, especially by those living in areas where there has been Japanese investment; Nissan, Hitachi plants etc.

www.mofa.go.jp/files/000185466.pdf

btw Mother Teresa does not want any of us bothering our tiny minds with any details.

 

[J-2739]

I posted that news a while a go, albeit on Sky News. I wonder if Japan would keep to their word, but I'd wouldn't be surprised if they did. It was time the UK sorted themselves out, though I do understand it's not as easy as I'm saying it...

 

[Steveman]

I also think most people who voted Leave are either stupid or racist ("send the buggers back").

That will be me then, thanks for your kind words.

 

[miami]

I also think most people who voted Leave are either stupid ... or racist

So you think there are at least 8,705,372 stupid or racist adults in the UK? How depressing

 

[phoenixcronin]

So you think there are at least 8,705,372 stupid or racist adults in the UK? How depressing

I would say that at least 1 million of those are of the "send dem fakin immigrants bak" type

 

[Harbornite]

I would say that at least 1 million of those are of the "send dem fakin immigrants bak" type

You can't prove that, but there were definitely a number of people with that mindset. Quite a few others were probably idiots who lapped up the soundbytes about the NHS and subsequently regretted their vote.

 

[phoenixcronin]

You can't prove that, but there were definitely a number of people with that mindset. Quite a few others were probably idiots who lapped up the soundbytes about the NHS and subsequently regretted their vote.

Indeed, how utterly sad to think that people based their vote on the £350 million etc when the total NHS budget is £116.4 billion per year.

 

[Harbornite]

Indeed, how utterly sad to think that people based their vote on the £350 million etc when the total NHS budget is £116.4 billion

I do think that Boris Johnson and other tories overestimated the intelligence of quite a few people. It really wasn't that difficult to debunk the lies spouted by the brexiters. :roll:

 

[St Rollox]

I would say that at least 1 million of those are of the "send dem fakin immigrants bak" type

Only a million?

 

[zuriblue]

Only a million?

Well more than that I'd say. Certainly the upsurge of incidents after the vote culmininating in the murder of a Polish immigrant recently tends to suggest that.

The sad thing is that many of the leavers who have actually realised that they were lied to are turning on those who were pointing out that they were lied to rather than those who did the lying who are more deserving of their anger.

 

[PHILIPE]

Well more than that I'd say. Certainly the upsurge of incidents after the vote culmininating in the murder of a Polish immigrant recently tends to suggest that.

The sad thing is that many of the leavers who have actually realised that they were lied to are turning on those who were pointing out that they were lied to rather than those who did the lying who are more deserving of their anger.

Both sides lied. Brexit re immigration and Remain with Project Fear.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Both sides lied. Brexit re immigration and Remain with Project Fear.

I'm not sure how "Project Fear" can be said to be a lie when a) the economy tanked immediately after the vote- look at the exchange rate at the moment, 20% down on the dollar- and b) most of the pain of Brexit will only come when we finally actually invoke Article 50.

Whereas the Leave lot were rowing back from their promises on the NHS even before the last ballot boxes had been opened.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Both sides lied. Brexit re immigration and Remain with Project Fear.

'Project Fear' was a tactic used by Leave to dismiss every single concern by Remain. Literally anything could be called "Project Fear" - and people fell for it.

 

[Gelliant]

Indeed, how utterly sad to think that people based their vote on the £350 million etc when the total NHS budget is £116.4 billion per year.

If that bus said "We send £163 million a week to the EU - Let's spend some of that on the NHS instead" do you think that remain would have won?

I'm not so sure...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Literally anything could be called "Project Fear"

Perhaps, but that certainly doesn't mean that the Remain campaign was a paragon of honesty.

Remain overstated the risks of leaving just as Leave overstated the rewards. Just look at the hysterical over-reactions of some (by no means all) remainers on June 24th - you'd think that the world had ended!

That's what tends to happen with political campaigns, reason gets swept away in a tsunami of hyperbole and nonsense from both sides.

 

[TheKnightWho]

If that bus said "We send £163 million a week to the EU - Let's spend some of that on the NHS instead" do you think that remain would have won?

I'm not so sure...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Perhaps, but that certainly doesn't mean that the Remain campaign was a paragon of honesty.

Remain overstated the risks of leaving just as Leave overstated the rewards. Just look at the hysterical over-reactions of some (by no means all) remainers on June 24th - you'd think that the world had ended!

That's what tends to happen with political campaigns, reason gets swept away in a tsunami of hyperbole and nonsense from both sides.

The response was swift and really has done significant damage. The only area in which the economy appears to be doing well is the FTSE100, which is down to the fact that these are without exception huge multinational enterprises that trade in pounds, but deal with many other currencies: the devaluation of the pound will increase the value of many of these in pounds simply because their primarily foreign investment will be artificially increased in value in pounds.

Elsewhere, predictions do seem to be bearing out. Manufacturing might be on the increase, but it is far more than counterbalanced by the increased cost of imports: this was always what the argument was in the first place. It's the net import/export level that matters - not one particular industry we can pin to the petard to trumpet how good Brexit has been. That's simply disingenuous.

Hate crimes have risen by staggering percentages, and I've seen many a Brexiter say "well people are looking for them now!!!" as though a 400% increase can be entirely put down to people being more perceptive.

The list does go on...

As for the figure put on the side of the campaign bus, the fact is that precisely £0 of that was ever going to go to the NHS, and indeed recent cuts and staff shortages which look to be exacerbated if increased immigration controls are increased only point to negatives for the NHS. The Leave campaign had the huge advantage of being able to tailor its arguments to the fantasies of each and every Brexit supporter simply because it had no obligation to come up with a distinct and defined plan which the country had to pick: the claim on the side of the battle bus was one of these, and the outrage by Farage, Hannan et al. as their claims aren't carried out by the government was only to be expected as many of them contradict with each other!

I really don't see how this is any more than brazen lying, or how it can be equated with claims by the Remain campaign that haven't had the chance to be borne out yet, or were too specific in their claims.

 

[Gelliant]

My point was that many people don't look beyond sensationalist headlines such as "Britain has become 400% more racist because of Brexit". The real picture is more complex, more nuanced than the kneejerk "There are more reports of racism after Leave won, therefore Leave turned everyone racist. Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

I agree that the Tories are unlikely to spend much of the billions of pounds we'll save by leaving the EU on the NHS, but many Leave voters were looking to the long term. They know that we will get a chance to vote the Tories out and replace them with a party who'll give the NHS the funding it requires.

 

[NSEFAN]

I agree that the Tories are unlikely to spend much of the billions of pounds we'll save by leaving the EU on the NHS, but many Leave voters were looking to the long term. They know that we will get a chance to vote the Tories out and replace them with a party who'll give the NHS the funding it requires.

How long term are you thinking? The Conservative party are going nowhere now that there's no serious opposition party. I fear that by the time Labour are able to make a serious clout again there won't be much of an NHS left to fund...

 

[TheKnightWho]

My point was that many people don't look beyond sensationalist headlines such as "Britain has become 400% more racist because of Brexit". The real picture is more complex, more nuanced than the kneejerk "There are more reports of racism after Leave won, therefore Leave turned everyone racist. Post hoc ergo propter hoc."

I agree that the Tories are unlikely to spend much of the billions of pounds we'll save by leaving the EU on the NHS, but many Leave voters were looking to the long term. They know that we will get a chance to vote the Tories out and replace them with a party who'll give the NHS the funding it requires.

Yet there is the huge assumption that we will actually be several hundred million pounds a week richer. That claim in itself was disingenuous due to the losses in tax revenue due to the problems caused for the economy.

 

[Gelliant]

How long term are you thinking? The Conservative party are going nowhere now that there's no serious opposition party. I fear that by the time Labour are able to make a serious clout again there won't be much of an NHS left to fund...

I fear you may be right about that
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet there is the huge assumption that we will actually be several hundred million pounds a week richer. That claim in itself was disingenuous due to the losses in tax revenue due to the problems caused for the economy.

There is a huge assumption in your post too, to be fair.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There is a huge assumption in your post too, to be fair.

Not really: economic projections are that Britain will be hurt by Brexit. If the economy shrinks by 6.2% as the treasury predicted, that's a lot more than £350m a week lost. Now I'm not saying the treasury will be right on that figure, but I am saying that the forecast is not good: you can't just say "it's the future - we don't know!" and equate all predictions, because it is possible to make economic predictions.