Discussion:
Brexit can be reversed despite Government claims, Article 50 architect Lord Kerr says
Add Reply
MM
2017-11-10 08:24:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
"Brexit can be reversed despite Government claims, the man behind
Article 50 has said.

"Lord Kerr, the architect behind the document claims the Brits are in
danger of being 'misled' by Government suggestions that quitting the
bloc is set in stone.

"The former UK ambassador to the European Union, will insist Theresa
May’s decision to trigger the withdrawal process does not mean
departure is inevitable.

" 'We can change our minds at any stage of the process," he will say
as negotiations continue in Brussels on the UK's separation from the
bloc.'

"Brexit Secretary David Davis and the EU's chief negotiator Michel
Barnier will meet in Brussels on the second day of the latest round of
talks before a crunch summit of European leaders next month which
could decide whether to move on to the next stage of the process
covering a future trade deal.

"Lord Kerr, who played a key role in drafting Article 50, the legal
mechanism for a country to leave the EU, will use a speech in London
to contradict the Government's view that the process is irreversible
now that it has begun.

"At an event hosted by the pro-EU Open Britain campaign, the
cross-bench peer will say 'we are not required to withdraw just
because Mrs May sent her letter' to Brussels.

" 'The fact is that a political decision has been made, in this
country, to maintain that there can be no going back.'

" 'Actually, the country still has a free choice about whether to
proceed. As new facts emerge, people are entitled to take a different
view.'

" 'And there's nothing in Article 50 to stop them.'

" 'I think the British people have the right to know this - they
should not be misled.' "
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html

MM
Vidcapper
2017-11-10 09:32:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Christie
2017-11-10 10:01:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
Theresa May well know this, as demonstrated by her plans to set the
UK's departure date and time from the EU in law.
Ophelia
2017-11-10 11:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
Theresa May well know this, as demonstrated by her plans to set the
UK's departure date and time from the EU in law.

==

Quite!
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-10 10:02:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
Actually fairly pointless legal navel gazing.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one) then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it is, people might change their minds - you know like how the government changes hands on quite big swings in General Elections...
Post by Vidcapper
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Yellow
2017-11-10 16:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
Actually fairly pointless legal navel gazing.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one) then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it is, people might change their minds - you know like how the government changes hands on quite big swings in General Elections...
Given the head start the remain campaign had with government support and
being the status quo, the win was enormous.
MM
2017-11-11 09:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
Actually fairly pointless legal navel gazing.
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one) then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it is, people might change their minds - you know like how the government changes hands on quite big swings in General Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2 (Radio 4 URL
below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great majority of people have
held on the view they had on referendum day, but in the last two weeks
every poll that YouGov has conducted have found that more people think
we were wrong to leave than were right to leave, whereas if you go
back to the early months of this year, in almost every poll more
people people thought we were right to leave than wrong to leave. So
there's been a clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s

MM
pamela
2017-11-11 10:33:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
..........
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate,
to reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate
political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one)
then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the
Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it
is, people might change their minds - you know like how the
government changes hands on quite big swings in General
Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2 (Radio
4 URL below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great majority of
people have held on the view they had on referendum day, but in
the last two weeks every poll that YouGov has conducted have
found that more people think we were wrong to leave than were
right to leave, whereas if you go back to the early months of
this year, in almost every poll more people people thought we
were right to leave than wrong to leave. So there's been a
clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s
MM
Thanks for the link. That looks like a good series.
Ian Jackson
2017-11-11 11:41:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
..........
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate,
to reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate
political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one)
then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the
Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it
is, people might change their minds - you know like how the
government changes hands on quite big swings in General
Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2 (Radio
4 URL below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great majority of
people have held on the view they had on referendum day, but in
the last two weeks every poll that YouGov has conducted have
found that more people think we were wrong to leave than were
right to leave, whereas if you go back to the early months of
this year, in almost every poll more people people thought we
were right to leave than wrong to leave. So there's been a
clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s
MM
Thanks for the link. That looks like a good series.
Yesterday evening, I went to an event where the local MP was the guest
speaker. Although now a back-bencher, in the past he has been near the
top in the Tory party. He said that from recent surveys, when the
referendum was held about 30% of the voters were die-hard Remainers, and
30% were die-hard Leavers. In these groups, virtually no one has changed
their opinion - and probably never will.

The other 40% were those who were less certain, and their vote
(whichever way it was) was decided more on the basis of 'on the whole'.
At the moment, in this group there is a slight move towards remaining -
but quite a lot now just fed up, and want to get the whole thing over.
--
Ian
pamela
2017-11-11 12:28:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
..........
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate,
to reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate
political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first
one) then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and
the Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the
midden it is, people might change their minds - you know like
how the government changes hands on quite big swings in
General Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2
(Radio 4 URL below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great
majority of people have held on the view they had on
referendum day, but in the last two weeks every poll that
YouGov has conducted have found that more people think we were
wrong to leave than were right to leave, whereas if you go
back to the early months of this year, in almost every poll
more people people thought we were right to leave than wrong
to leave. So there's been a clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s
MM
Thanks for the link. That looks like a good series.
Yesterday evening, I went to an event where the local MP was the
guest speaker. Although now a back-bencher, in the past he has
been near the top in the Tory party. He said that from recent
surveys, when the referendum was held about 30% of the voters
were die-hard Remainers, and 30% were die-hard Leavers. In these
groups, virtually no one has changed their opinion - and
probably never will.
The other 40% were those who were less certain, and their vote
(whichever way it was) was decided more on the basis of 'on the
whole'. At the moment, in this group there is a slight move
towards remaining - but quite a lot now just fed up, and want to
get the whole thing over.
That big grey area in the middle is the only place where change of
mind will occur. At the moment Brexit is boring to most people.
We'll see a shift in their opinion when the true cost of Brexit
hits home and gets felt at the shops and in pay packets.

There's very little in Brexit for Joe Public.....

He doesn't want to pay more for the chattering classes to feel
better about sovereignty.

Nor does he particularly want to swap Polish and Lithuanian
workers for those from Bangladesh or Nigeria.

And he isn't much affected by where regulations are made.

He wants more money for the NHS, better roads, less tax and all
that financial stuff where Brexit won't help.
MM
2017-11-12 12:23:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
..........
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate,
to reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate
political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first one)
then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and the
Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the midden it
is, people might change their minds - you know like how the
government changes hands on quite big swings in General
Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2 (Radio
4 URL below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great majority of
people have held on the view they had on referendum day, but in
the last two weeks every poll that YouGov has conducted have
found that more people think we were wrong to leave than were
right to leave, whereas if you go back to the early months of
this year, in almost every poll more people people thought we
were right to leave than wrong to leave. So there's been a
clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s
MM
Thanks for the link. That looks like a good series.
It is, and don't forget (a) that this is Series 2; Series 1 was just
as interesting, and (b) you can download every episode.

MM
pamela
2017-11-12 16:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pamela
Post by MM
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 02:02:54 -0800 (PST), "R. Mark Clayton"
Post by R. Mark Clayton
..........
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate,
to reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate
political suicide.
Well if the referendum had gone two to one (like the first
one) then you would be right, but as it was 51.? to 48.? and
the Brexit process is beginning to look and smell like the
midden it is, people might change their minds - you know like
how the government changes hands on quite big swings in
General Elections...
On yesterday's Brexit: A Guide for the Perplexed Series 2
(Radio 4 URL below) Peter Kellner said that "...a great
majority of people have held on the view they had on
referendum day, but in the last two weeks every poll that
YouGov has conducted have found that more people think we were
wrong to leave than were right to leave, whereas if you go
back to the early months of this year, in almost every poll
more people people thought we were right to leave than wrong
to leave. So there's been a clear, but small shift."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d4bkt?t=9m28s
MM
Thanks for the link. That looks like a good series.
It is, and don't forget (a) that this is Series 2; Series 1 was
just as interesting, and (b) you can download every episode.
MM
Both series are still on iPlayer. I can listen to them there. It
will make a nice change to hear some fact based information about
Brexit rather than the fairy tales Leavers like to conjour up.
A. Filip
2017-11-10 11:40:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to
reverse it without their consent would be the ultimate political
suicide.
Anyway:
1) it wouldn't be E.U. like to accept such non obvious
interpretation without U.K. paying pretty high price.
Some member countries will be eager to get "something" for accepting it.
2) Going back "during exit process" would mean loosing the ultimate
threat/bluff "we will quit (E.U.)!".
--
A. Filip
| I always turn to the sports pages first, which record people's accomplishments.
| The front page has nothing but man's failures.
| -- Chief Justice Earl Warren
MM
2017-11-11 08:55:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Vidcapper
Post by MM
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
MM
Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
The *goverment* does not need the electorate's consent to bin Brexit.
Sure, it would have a big fight on its hands, but the fact remains
that the *government* holds all the cards, since the EU referendum was
never intended to be binding in law.

MM
BurfordTJustice
2017-11-11 11:06:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Fake news....

The pussified "electorate" would do nothing but whine.




"Vidcapper" <***@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:DmeNB.35121$***@fx38.am4...
: On 10/11/2017 08:24, MM wrote:
:
: >
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-can-be-reversed-despite-government-claims-article-50-architect-lord-kerr-says-a3687256.html
: >
: > MM
: >
:
: Except that having delegated the decision to the electorate, to reverse
: it without their consent would be the ultimate political suicide.
:
: --
:
: Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
MM
2017-11-12 12:24:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 06:06:13 -0500, "BurfordTJustice"
Post by BurfordTJustice
Fake news....
The pussified "electorate" would do nothing but whine.
Exactly.

MM
tim...
2017-11-10 10:13:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
"Brexit can be reversed despite Government claims, the man behind
Article 50 has said.
"Lord Kerr, the architect behind the document claims the Brits are in
danger of being 'misled' by Government suggestions that quitting the
bloc is set in stone.
"The former UK ambassador to the European Union, will insist Theresa
May's decision to trigger the withdrawal process does not mean
departure is inevitable.
" 'We can change our minds at any stage of the process," he will say
as negotiations continue in Brussels on the UK's separation from the
bloc.'
So he says.

But where's his authority to actually enforce that?

AISI, he hasn't got any.

If the EU disagree they will have every right to ask the EU court to decide,
and that could take 2 years.

two years that we haven't got.

And then where will we be if the EU court decides that we don't, in fact,
have the possibility of withdrawing our resignation but have passed the date
by which we are "out" and there's no completed agreement?

Up shit street!

Of course there is the alternative scenario that will play out if we ask to
withdraw our resignation and that is:

The EU says "We don't agree that you can do that, but we will rescind our
right to take it to court and find out, if you agree to this condition, and
this condition and that condition, oh and by the way all these other
conditions"

and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.

tim
MM
2017-11-11 09:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?

Insurrection?

In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".

MM
Bod
2017-11-11 09:29:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
MM
We're leaving the EU, get used to it.
--
Bod
MM
2017-11-12 12:25:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
MM
We're leaving the EU, get used to it.
You think just by repeating it, it's deffo going to happen?

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-12 15:29:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
MM
We're leaving the EU, get used to it.
You think just by repeating it, it's deffo going to happen?
We voted for it. If it doesn't happen, we should take our government to court. It would be the same as voting Tory and getting the LibDems in.
--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. And I'm not sure about the universe. - Albert Einstein
The Peeler
2017-11-12 16:00:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 12 Nov 2017 15:29:13 -0000, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
You think just by repeating it, it's deffo going to happen?
We voted for it. If it doesn't happen, we should take our government to
court. It would be the same as voting Tory and getting the LibDems in.
ALMOST quoteworthy, Birdbrain! Try again! <BG>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) pathological "mind"
revealed:
"I am actually considering crashing deliberately into one of my neighbours.
Three times he's stopped on the wrong side of the road, directly in front of
me, then reversed into his drive. I had to brake hard to avoid a head on
collision. Next time I'll glance at the camera to make sure it's rolling
and carry on."
Message-ID: <***@red.lan>
Fredxxx
2017-11-11 15:55:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.

Best get used to leaving the EU.
MM
2017-11-12 12:29:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those who didn't
vote are automatically assigned to the winning vote.

Nope. Sorry. Those 30 million could be remainers, leavers or simply
don't knows. The only thing we know for sure is that they did not
vote! Why they didn't is immaterial. My money's on complacency,
laziness, false expectations. But again, it's immaterial. What you
cannot do is simply ignore 30 million votes because you believe
they're all supporting your side of the argument.

MM
Fredxxx
2017-11-12 13:09:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those who didn't
vote are automatically assigned to the winning vote.
That is the right approach to any electoral system. The wishes of those
who didn't vote are conveyed by those who do. It is their choice to
vote, or not to vote.
pamela
2017-11-15 20:56:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:13:04 -0000, "tim..."
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen
if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their
dotage, most too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the
barricades. The younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by
shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those who
didn't vote are automatically assigned to the winning vote.
That is the right approach to any electoral system. The wishes
of those who didn't vote are conveyed by those who do. It is
their choice to vote, or not to vote.
No, that's not how the electoral system works.

An election is held, a winner gets appointed and he or she takes into
account the needs of all the electorate and also those who don't have
the vote such as children or some of the very elderly.

The competition is for the election. After that, it's no longer a
competition.
Fredxxx
2017-11-16 03:12:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:13:04 -0000, "tim..."
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their
dotage, most too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the
barricades. The younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by
shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those who
didn't vote are automatically assigned to the winning vote.
That is the right approach to any electoral system. The wishes
of those who didn't vote are conveyed by those who do. It is
their choice to vote, or not to vote.
No, that's not how the electoral system works.
An election is held, a winner gets appointed and he or she takes into
account the needs of all the electorate and also those who don't have
the vote such as children or some of the very elderly.
The competition is for the election. After that, it's no longer a
competition.
And those who don't vote count to the winning side. Do you think their
vote should automatically be added to the 'losing side'?
MM
2017-11-16 11:22:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:13:04 -0000, "tim..."
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their
dotage, most too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the
barricades. The younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by
shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those who
didn't vote are automatically assigned to the winning vote.
That is the right approach to any electoral system. The wishes
of those who didn't vote are conveyed by those who do. It is
their choice to vote, or not to vote.
No, that's not how the electoral system works.
An election is held, a winner gets appointed and he or she takes into
account the needs of all the electorate and also those who don't have
the vote such as children or some of the very elderly.
The competition is for the election. After that, it's no longer a
competition.
And those who don't vote count to the winning side. Do you think their
vote should automatically be added to the 'losing side'?
They are not automatically added to either side. The majority for
Brexit still stands at 1,2 million. But it is impossible to state how
many of those who did not vote support leave or remain.

Now it's fair to say that Leavers were *absolitely* goping to vote
because they knew they'd be up against the establishment view that the
status quo is always better. They, Brexiters, would have to *ensure*
that *their* votes would be counted.

However, from the point of view of remainers, like David Cameron and
around 75% of all MPs, a majority for Leave would simply not happen.
They were too comfortable in their unbounded complacency.

So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is likely
that a far greater proportion of them are, or were, complacent
remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the Brexiter
contingent which *did* mostly vote.

But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that many
Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as they were on
referendum day, but again, we'll never know.

MM
Ian Jackson
2017-11-16 11:58:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is likely
that a far greater proportion of them are, or were, complacent
remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the Brexiter
contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that many
Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as they were on
referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think' referendum.
Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends to produce immediate
apoplexy in most Brexiteers.

However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't realise
that this wouldn't simply be yet another general election (like many did
the last time) - and that the outcome really, really would matter.

Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at most
general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even higher if we
had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to leave, we would
positively know that this really was the True Will Of The People - and
this would silence all the 'Remoaners' for good.
--
Ian
pamela
2017-11-16 14:43:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is
likely that a far greater proportion of them are, or were,
complacent remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the
Brexiter contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that
many Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as
they were on referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think'
referendum. Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends
to produce immediate apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't
realise that this wouldn't simply be yet another general
election (like many did the last time) - and that the outcome
really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at
most general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even
higher if we had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to
leave, we would positively know that this really was the True
Will Of The People - and this would silence all the 'Remoaners'
for good.
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.

However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.

The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.

When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
Ian Jackson
2017-11-16 14:56:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is
likely that a far greater proportion of them are, or were,
complacent remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the
Brexiter contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that
many Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as
they were on referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think'
referendum. Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends
to produce immediate apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't
realise that this wouldn't simply be yet another general
election (like many did the last time) - and that the outcome
really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at
most general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even
higher if we had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to
leave, we would positively know that this really was the True
Will Of The People - and this would silence all the 'Remoaners'
for good.
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
But while it seems that at least Parliament will get a vote on the deal,
they seem to be wanting to steamroller through a 'take it or leave it -
but we're still leaving anyway' choice.
--
Ian
pamela
2017-11-16 15:04:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is
likely that a far greater proportion of them are, or were,
complacent remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than
the Brexiter contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming
that many Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about
leaving as they were on referendum day, but again, we'll never
know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think'
referendum. Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends
to produce immediate apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who
don't realise that this wouldn't simply be yet another general
election (like many did the last time) - and that the outcome
really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at
most general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even
higher if we had a re-run. This time, if the result was still
to leave, we would positively know that this really was the
True Will Of The People - and this would silence all the
'Remoaners' for good.
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having
a referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce
payment which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if
they wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
But while it seems that at least Parliament will get a vote on
the deal, they seem to be wanting to steamroller through a 'take
it or leave it - but we're still leaving anyway' choice.
MPs have been cowed and it's interesting, although disappointing,
to watch them being herded.

Meanwhile cracks are already appearing in Theresa May's control of
Tory Party members and it can't be too long before she loses a
vote of confidence in the Commons. A general election will
probably make things worse for hard Brexiteers.
MM
2017-11-17 10:44:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 14:56:46 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
But while it seems that at least Parliament will get a vote on the deal,
they seem to be wanting to steamroller through a 'take it or leave it -
but we're still leaving anyway' choice.
The government is still as underhand as ever. Originally, Theresa May
intended to use the Royal Prerogative to *bypass* Parliament! Only
after the court cases in the High Court and the Supreme Court was the
government forced to accept proper democracy.

With each day that passes there will be numerous politicians, civil
servants, lobbyists and advisers coming up with new ways to undermine
democracy with regard to Brexit.

MM
The Todal
2017-11-16 16:31:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.

That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes - it means
they were desperate. And easy fodder for the snake-oil salesmen like
Farage, Johnson, Gove and Leadsom.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/brexit-heartlands-want-someone-else-to-pay-pthzgl35g

If you don't have a subscription, here's most of it.

quote

Well here’s an irony. As Brexit in whatever form gets closer and its
damaging implications for trade and jobs start to become clearer, some
of the regions, industries and groups that most enthusiastically
supported Leave are starting to raise the alarm about its impact or
demand special exemption from its consequences.

Take Grimsby. It’s one of the most deprived areas of Britain; it hasn’t
flourished in the decades since we joined the EU and it voted by 70 per
cent to 30 per cent for Leave. Two weeks ago the anxious representatives
of one of the town’s biggest remaining industries, seafood processing,
went to Westminster to petition MPs to grant Grimsby the exceptional
status of a free trade port when we leave.

Grimsby is desperate to avoid the imposition of post-Brexit tariff
barriers, delays and customs checks on its fish business, because it
imports 90 per cent of its fish fresh from Europe. It is also worried
about losing the 20 per cent of its workforce that comes from abroad. If
Brexit goes ahead without any special concessions to Grimsby then an
industry that includes Young’s and The Saucy Fish Co, and that employs
5,000 people, fears it will lose its competitive edge to rival centres
in Germany and France.

Cornwall wants special treatment too, after rejecting the EU by 57 per
cent to 43 per cent. This month its farmers reported that fruit and veg
are rotting in its fields because so many EU migrant labourers have left
since the referendum. There were some 17,000 EU nationals in Cornwall,
around 3 per cent of the population, but this year the staffing levels
on farms has fallen to 65 per cent of what they need.

In South Tyneside, which backed Leave by 62 per cent to 38 per cent, the
local council is also seeking protection from the results of Brexit.
Last week the think tank IPPR North revealed that leaving will hit the
north much harder than London; in an area that’s already substantially
poorer than the south, more than 10 per cent of the region’s goods and
services are dependent on EU trade, compared with 7 per cent in London.

The EU’s economic subsidies to the northeast in the past decade have
been higher than for any other region, at almost £190 per head. Yet the
area still voted to reject the union, in a variation of “What did the
Romans ever do for us?”. Now South Tyneside’s council is demanding that
the northeast’s EU subsidies should be replaced by government ones at
the same level, and that there should be a “continued free flow of
skilled people, and frictionless, barrier-free trade”. It says it hopes
economic and social improvements will follow from Brexit. Everything may
have changed, in other words, but everything should stay the same.
Except where it could become even better.

It’s the same pattern in care homes or hospitals, where the elderly who
voted 64 per cent to 36 per cent to leave are going to be worst affected
by the fact that the flow of EU nurses has fallen by 90 per cent in 12
months. Before the vote they made up a third of new nurse registrations.

Despite the optimistic assertions of a great future for Britain, Brexit
is going to hurt, and a hundred special exemptions won’t avoid it. Our
growth has already tumbled to the bottom of the G7, our stagnant wages
have fallen behind inflation again, and Treasury forecasts predict that
in 15 years Brexit will leave the economy 6-7 per cent smaller than it
would have been. I fear Britons are all hoping that somehow they won’t
be the ones paying the price.
MM
2017-11-17 10:46:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?

I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.

MM
R. Mark Clayton
2017-11-17 11:04:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?
I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.
MM
No MM low educational attainment and stupidity are not the same thing. As the deniers have rightly pointed out fewer older people had the opportunity for educational attainment than today, but they were not any more stupid. OTOH greater educational enlightenment did allow younger people to vote [remain] with their heads, but it is clear that those too stupid to gain educational qualifications in the recent times when opportunity was available to all also predominantly voted leave.
Vidcapper
2017-11-17 16:09:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No MM low educational attainment and stupidity are not the same
thing. As the deniers have rightly pointed out fewer older people
had the opportunity for educational attainment than today, but they
were not any more stupid. OTOH greater educational enlightenment did
allow younger people to vote [remain] with their heads, but it is
clear that those too stupid to gain educational qualifications in the
recent times when opportunity was available to all also predominantly
voted leave.
You're getting as bad as abelard with his undemocratic 'franchise by
examination' notion.
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Fredxxx
2017-11-17 11:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?
I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.
Who are most stupid are those who allowed conditions for a successful
Brexit vote.

So many on here are myopic or deniers of why Brexit is happening. They
really are the stupid ones.
The Todal
2017-11-17 13:13:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed.  For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?
I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.
Who are most stupid are those who allowed conditions for a successful
Brexit vote.
So many on here are myopic or deniers of why Brexit is happening. They
really are the stupid ones.
No, the stupidest of all are Cameron and his cronies, who opted for a
very simplistic referendum question and assumed that he'd win.

And the MPs who didn't think to refine the question and maybe have a
clause about a two thirds majority required.
Fredxxx
2017-11-17 13:59:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed.  For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?
I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.
Who are most stupid are those who allowed conditions for a successful
Brexit vote.
So many on here are myopic or deniers of why Brexit is happening. They
really are the stupid ones.
No, the stupidest of all are Cameron and his cronies, who opted for a
very simplistic referendum question and assumed that he'd win.
Given support for UKIP he had little choice. What he was most stupid in
doing was promising immigration rates of 30,000 or so, and not
supporting the increase in infrastructure commensurate with the increase
in population such as housing etc.
Post by The Todal
And the MPs who didn't think to refine the question and maybe have a
clause about a two thirds majority required.
Again, that would have been suicide until it was a true pass-go referendum.

It would also have played into UKIP's hands when those wanting Brexit
would be more likely to vote and therefore end in a majority vote,
albeit below the required threshold. Much in the same way the ill-fated
earlier Scottish referendum gave a boost to the SNP.
tim...
2017-11-17 15:04:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by The Todal
Post by pamela
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
The areas of the country that voted for Brexit tend to be those that
will suffer most from a Brexit.
That doesn't mean they were stupid when they cast their votes
Not stupid? To play the role of turkeys voting for Christmas?
I think they were darned stupid! And the stats prove it.
Who are most stupid are those who allowed conditions for a successful
Brexit vote.
So many on here are myopic or deniers of why Brexit is happening. They
really are the stupid ones.
No, the stupidest of all are Cameron and his cronies, who opted for a very
simplistic referendum question and assumed that he'd win.
And the MPs who didn't think to refine the question and maybe have a
clause about a two thirds majority required.
you think that the rise of UKIP would have been stopped if there were such a
clause

tim
MM
2017-11-17 10:41:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is
likely that a far greater proportion of them are, or were,
complacent remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the
Brexiter contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that
many Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as
they were on referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think'
referendum. Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends
to produce immediate apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't
realise that this wouldn't simply be yet another general
election (like many did the last time) - and that the outcome
really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at
most general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even
higher if we had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to
leave, we would positively know that this really was the True
Will Of The People - and this would silence all the 'Remoaners'
for good.
It's not right to ask exactly the same question in the same
circumstances because then that seems as if you will keep having a
referendum until you get the result you want.
However in this case the circumstances have changed. For
instance, there's now going to be a socking great divorce payment
which voters were not told at the time.
The referendum was not a blank cheque for the government to cook
up any agreement it feels like having.
When the exit details are finalised it seems right to ask the
public if they are happy with what has been negotiated and if they
wish to proceed with the proposed arrangements.
But the problem then arises of how to put a single question to cover
all aspects of the proposed arrangements. I don't think it's possible
to do that. It's not just the divorce payment, it's what will happen
with a replacement for CAP, for the CFP, proposed tariffs, freedom to
travel, rights for UK citizens abroad, and a hundred other issues.

MM
MM
2017-11-17 10:37:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:58:37 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is likely
that a far greater proportion of them are, or were, complacent
remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the Brexiter
contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that many
Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as they were on
referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think' referendum.
Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends to produce immediate
apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't realise
that this wouldn't simply be yet another general election (like many did
the last time) - and that the outcome really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at most
general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even higher if we
had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to leave, we would
positively know that this really was the True Will Of The People - and
this would silence all the 'Remoaners' for good.
But I would still want a minimum turnout and a *clear* majority, not a
mere 1.2 million from 46 million. That's the equivalent of putting
spare change in the charity box after you've done your shopping.

MM
Ian Jackson
2017-11-17 10:58:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 11:58:37 +0000, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
So, taking the huge number of voters who did not vote, it is likely
that a far greater proportion of them are, or were, complacent
remainers who thought it unnecessary to vote than the Brexiter
contingent which *did* mostly vote.
But we will never know. Some opinion pollsters are claiming that many
Brexiters are no longer as enthusiastic about leaving as they were on
referendum day, but again, we'll never know.
The only way to tell would be to have a second 're-think' referendum.
Unfortunately, the merest suggestion of this tends to produce immediate
apoplexy in most Brexiteers.
However, there can now be few who are eligible to vote who don't realise
that this wouldn't simply be yet another general election (like many did
the last time) - and that the outcome really, really would matter.
Even though the 2016 referendum turnout was far higher than at most
general elections, I'm pretty sure that it would be even higher if we
had a re-run. This time, if the result was still to leave, we would
positively know that this really was the True Will Of The People - and
this would silence all the 'Remoaners' for good.
But I would still want a minimum turnout and a *clear* majority, not a
mere 1.2 million from 46 million. That's the equivalent of putting
spare change in the charity box after you've done your shopping.
Yes - any referendum as significant as the one we've just had should
require a minimum turnout and minimum majority in order to change the
status quo.

In the Brexit referendum, a turnout of 20% and a majority of 1 would
probably still have had the Brexiteers declaring that it was The Will of
The People.

The problem now is if we had a 're-think' referendum, and the vote is
decisively to stay but doesn't quite meet a more-severe criterion to
change the status quo - what would the status quo be? Would be that we
stay - or would it be that we 'respect' the previous Will Of The People
(even though The People have obviously changed their mind)?
--
Ian
pamela
2017-11-16 14:33:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pamela
Post by Fredxxx
On Sat, 11 Nov 2017 15:55:25 +0000, Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
On Fri, 10 Nov 2017 10:13:04 -0000, "tim..."
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their
dotage, most too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man
the barricades. The younger voters will see 'em off PDQ,
just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not
oppose Brexit.
Ah, this is the infamous Fredxxx doctrine that claims those
who didn't vote are automatically assigned to the winning
vote.
That is the right approach to any electoral system. The wishes
of those who didn't vote are conveyed by those who do. It is
their choice to vote, or not to vote.
No, that's not how the electoral system works.
An election is held, a winner gets appointed and he or she
takes into account the needs of all the electorate and also
those who don't have the vote such as children or some of the
very elderly.
The competition is for the election. After that, it's no
longer a competition.
And those who don't vote count to the winning side. Do you think
their vote should automatically be added to the 'losing side'?
You're asking questions which relate only to the election itself
but it's wider than that.

Governing must take into account the needs of the whole population
(including those who are too young or infirm to have a vote)
This is irrespective of whether or not the citizen voted or who
they voted for.
pensive hamster
2017-11-16 20:52:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Isn't it equally true to say that those same 30 million
did not support Brexit?

So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Post by Fredxxx
Best get used to leaving the EU.
TMS320
2017-11-16 21:30:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Isn't it equally true to say that those same 30 million
did not support Brexit?
So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Yes, a referendum is different to an election when the implications of a
zero turn out is considered.

In a referendum the option put forward is to continue as before or
change. So with zero turn out, the unanimous "don't care" would default
to continue, which is exactly the same result as when a majority of
active voters vote to continue.

In an election, the choices mean that a zero turn out would produce a
state of limbo.
MM
2017-11-17 10:53:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TMS320
Post by pensive hamster
Isn't it equally true to say that those same 30 million
did not support Brexit?
So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Yes, a referendum is different to an election when the implications of a
zero turn out is considered.
In a referendum the option put forward is to continue as before or
change. So with zero turn out, the unanimous "don't care" would default
to continue, which is exactly the same result as when a majority of
active voters vote to continue.
In an election, the choices mean that a zero turn out would produce a
state of limbo.
And now let's hear Fredxxx's latest comments after these
clarifications.

MM
Fredxxx
2017-11-17 11:42:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by TMS320
Post by pensive hamster
Isn't it equally true to say that those same 30 million
did not support Brexit?
So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Yes, a referendum is different to an election when the implications of a
zero turn out is considered.
In a referendum the option put forward is to continue as before or
change. So with zero turn out, the unanimous "don't care" would default
to continue, which is exactly the same result as when a majority of
active voters vote to continue.
In an election, the choices mean that a zero turn out would produce a
state of limbo.
A zero vote is an election where no one is elected. Same as if precisely
the same number voted for two candidates. I have no idea what the UK
electoral system would do, though assume the likelihood of a fresh local
election.

Otherwise if just one vote is cast for one side, then that side wins.
The others who didn't vote might as well voted for the same side as the
outcome would be the same.
Tim Woodall
2017-11-17 13:19:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
A zero vote is an election where no one is elected. Same as if precisely
the same number voted for two candidates. I have no idea what the UK
electoral system would do, though assume the likelihood of a fresh local
election.
Parliamentary (and local) elections are decided by a toss of a coin in
the event of a tie (or draw straws)

Most recently in Northumberland on 5th May.
MM
2017-11-17 10:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 12:52:08 -0800 (PST), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Yes, that is the only true way of looking at the figures. Normally,
people who desperately want to change "the system" make every attempt
to get out and vote because they know they're up against the status
quo, and that would account for the Brexiter vote.

Many Remainers OTOH would just assume that the status quo wouldn't
need their support, because, well, it's the status quo, innit! Hence
the slim majority.

MM
Fredxxx
2017-11-17 11:44:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by MM
Post by tim...
and anyone with half a brain knows that's what will happen if we try.
Okay, but what WILL happen then?
Insurrection?
In your dreams! Only 17 million Brexiters mostly in their dotage, most
too old to walk up the stairs, let alone man the barricades. The
younger voters will see 'em off PDQ, just by shouting "Boo!".
No, only 16 million opposed Brexit. 30 million did not oppose Brexit.
Isn't it equally true to say that those same 30 million
did not support Brexit?
So basically there are only 17 million who supported
Brexit, and 46 million who did not support Brexit.
Only in yours and MM dreams.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Best get used to leaving the EU.
Col
2017-11-12 13:00:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
"Brexit can be reversed despite Government claims, the man behind
Article 50 has said.
This isn't even news though. Right from when Article 50 was first
invoked it was said that we could pull out at any time. Right up to
10.59pm and 59 seconds on March 29th 2019 in theory now that we
(ludicrously) have a precise time for our departure.
--
Col
Loading...