|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Shake it all about: Brexit thread II
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Alan Creswell: quote:
Which is the reason why a general election to solve the Brexit problem is a totally bonkers idea.
For May to call an election having previously said she wouldn't, she would have to be able to say, hand on heart, that her ability to get the brexit process through is being frustrated by the low majority she inherited and so she needs to go to the country. That's not bonkers in my view, but I do basically support the May government which possibly you do not.
quote:
You either insist people vote solely on the single issue of Brexit, ignoring all the other policies of each party. Or, you vote on the complete package . .
Nobody's insisting on anything, but of course whenever an election is held in the context of one issue that dominates, this will be the case. The issue at the next election is likely to be Socialism vs Capitalism, which I think is just as important. quote:
The only surefire way of knowing the views of the electorate to gain a mandate for a particular form of exit is to have an election between different options rather than different candidates - ie: a second referendum.
First, if you vote for an option that is put by the Opposition and not accepted by the Government, you have effectively made it into an election, (bit like the upcoming Italian referendum) and I'm totally sure that May would immediately trigger an election - indeed I think she should - if the referendum mandate was one that she felt she couldn't deliver. But second, how would you phrase the option so as to make it comprehensible? Assuming you accept the practical difficulty of both options being several hundred words, please could you provide the questions verbatim as you would propose them in a referendum? And as a further condition, you must be able to say, no barleys, that the people to whom the question is directed will really understand it.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
[...] in my half-awake state this morning, R4 reliably informed me that the government's own legal advisers were telling May the game was up, and the SC was (I think the phrase was) 'unlikely' to reverse the Appeal Court's decision.
That's interesting. R4 (and the government's lawyers) might be right. On the other hand, the government's lawyers might be being intentionally pessimistic, like Scotty in Star Trek III, multiplying his repair estimates by a factor of four so that he can keep his reputation as a miracle worker.
You invited orfeo to look again at his argument, in the light of the High Court's judgment. Perhaps you heard James O'Brien's comments on LBC (which went viral and can be found online); he made the government's arguments sound foolish. Maybe you thought that orfeo would look through his argument and spot a mistake, like a software programmer looking back over their code after the failure of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999, discovering that a piece of software used the wrong units of measurement.
Lawyers can make mistakes just as easily as anyone else. (I once made a humdinger of an error: discussing a case with a law professor, I relied on a judge's opinion without realising that the judge was dissenting. Talk about embarrassing!). In cases like this one, there are good arguments on both sides (as I said earlier, providing sources). Legal debates at this level are more like historical or theological arguments than scientific ones. Lawyers can lose a case like this one without making a mistake.
The government's argument can be made to look foolish (as James O'Brien showed) but so can the argument which the judges accepted. (For instance, it can be argued that the claimant's case is self-contradictory: their first submission was that prerogative powers cannot remove statutory rights, their third submission was that, by triggering Article 50, the government would use prerogative powers to remove statutory rights - see para 74 of the judgment). orfeo's view (since prerogative powers cannot remove statutory rights, those rights remain in UK law until removed by Parliament), is a valid interpretation of the law, even if it isn't the one which the court preferred.
[ 07. November 2016, 08:29: Message edited by: Alwyn ]
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
how would you phrase the option so as to make it comprehensible? Assuming you accept the practical difficulty of both options being several hundred words
That's the point. There is, and never was, a simple question. The referendum in June had two choices. One was relatively simple, remain in the EU and maintain the current status (which, barring some minor tinkering by Cameron's "deal", is a current known with some uncertainty about the distant future - and, when the EU proposes a major change such as enhanced powers to Parliament, admission of Turkey or whatever, then the UK would have a say on that and maybe then would be a sensible time for a referendum). The other option, to leave the EU, was and still is incredibly complex with a wide range of potential options across multiple policy areas. The only way to distill that option down to a simple question is to produce several hundred words, probably tens of thousands of words - probably with a short list of bullet points for the campaign leaflets: "The Leave campaign seeks to:
1. maintain free trade with the EU
2. continue scientific, technical and security cooperation.
3. end free movement between the UK and EU
4. end participation in EU agriculture and fisheries policies
5. end UK support for EU regional development
etc"
(just an example, it isn't my place to define what Brexit means, that's the job of the Leave campaign)
Trying to put a simple question to the British people was a massive mistake, because it never was a simple question.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Alan Creswell: From your reply I do not understand why you would consider an election the most-bonkers alternative. But that aside you raise an interesting question, and I suppose it leads me to ask if you were equally against the Referendum for Scottish Independence.
Because in both cases:
1. There was good evidence that a sufficient percentage of the population, greatly desired independence from a larger association which they had ceased to see as beneficial.
2. There was no chance that any General Election would see a party with a significant chance of winning, offering them what they wanted.
So either you say: Tough, we're giving you no opportunity, or you allow a referendum to take place.
And this is bound to reduce complex outcomes to simple questions, leaving a lot up for grabs. And I can't see any less uncertainty on the Independence for Scotland (only if they can stay in the EU? only if a currency union can be agreed etc etc). As you point out, it is simply impossible to frame a referendum that avoids this.
But in both cases you cannot say that the outcome is vacuous. It is also risky, since as you have well pointed out, you cannot know all the details of what you are getting as a deal.
But for some people, independence is sufficiently important that they are willing to accept that risk. Should they not be allowed that option?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
The fact that the Government had no real plan for what Brexit would look like was public knowledge before the referendum. This implies one of two things:
1. Leavers didn't care - they thought any alternative was better than remaining. In which case, I'd say the Government has a mandate to adopt whatever form of Brexit it likes.
2. Leavers didn't know - in which case, they are definitely too stupid to be entrusted with a second referendum asking what form of Brexit they'd like (or a general election acting as a surrogate for the same question).
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Alan Creswell: From your reply I do not understand why you would consider an election the most-bonkers alternative.
Only because an election would be to appoint a Parliament and government for five years. And, to elect those members on the basis of calling article 50 and taking us out of the EU, which will take only a fraction of Parliamentary time over that period, would be to deliver us a government for the wrong reasons. And, it still wouldn't really answer the question of what the UK population wants out of Brexit.
quote:
I suppose it leads me to ask if you were equally against the Referendum for Scottish Independence.
There were significant differences between the two referenda. First, the Scottish independence referendum was called by a government which wanted independence, if the vote was yes in 2014 there wouldn't be a government led by someone who opposed independence negotiating for independence. Unlike the current situation of a government and Parliament strongly opposed to the end that has been forced on them.
Second, as I have said before, the Scottish vote was based on a very detailed opening negotiating position, a white paper based on decades of campaigning for independence, balancing the desires of the Scottish people (at least the 20-30% strongly in favour of independence) and practicality. Although the wording on the ballot paper was simple, there was no pretence that it was a simple question, and no lack of work in advance to lay out a way through the complexity. Far different from a slogan on the side of a bus, which didn't even get the number right.
I've no particular problem with referenda, but they should be the end of the hard work of the first few parts of a process not the very first step. If Cameron was going to insist on honouring the manifesto commitment, then give Leave 3 years to work out what they were going to campaign for, and hold the referendum towards the end of the Parliament. Assuming that is that doing that wouldn't result in the Leave campaign failing the agree anything and be so beset by infighting that they make Labour look like a model of political unity.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Practically speaking, if the Tories went to a General Election on a platform of delivering a particular kind of Brexit (even if that was "let May get the best deal she can and stop asking questions") she'd likely get an overwhelming and thumping majority. Labour would get a really good kicking, UKIP even in disarray would likely pick up seats.
The Lib Dems might pick up seats in particular areas and might end up being the effective opposition in co-ordination with the SNP. For all the good it'd do - ie essentially nothing at all.
If May goes to the polls, that'd be a very clever not stupid thing to do. And what would the electorate think if Labour MPs voted against repealing fixed-term governments in a situation like that?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Though, Theresa May has been making a lot of noise about still being on target to start the process by the end of March. Calling a general election would totally and utterly screw up that time table - how will it go down with the Leave voters if she does something else to slow down calling Article 50 until after an election in May? It's going to be very risky, even more so the longer it goes on before calling Article 50.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, Theresa May has been making a lot of noise about still being on target to start the process by the end of March. Calling a general election would totally and utterly screw up that time table - how will it go down with the Leave voters if she does something else to slow down calling Article 50 until after an election in May? It's going to be very risky, even more so the longer it goes on before calling Article 50.
My guess is that it'll depend exactly on what happens in the Supreme Court and the extent to which May is frustrated by long debates and amendments in the Commons. If the SC case generates a lot of other cases and if (somehow) the SNP and others are able to cause significant delays to May's Article 50 timetable, my guess is that she'll throw up her hands and say "soddit, let's just have a GE and get these idiots out of my hair".
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Though, Theresa May has been making a lot of noise about still being on target to start the process by the end of March. Calling a general election would totally and utterly screw up that time table - how will it go down with the Leave voters if she does something else to slow down calling Article 50 until after an election in May? It's going to be very risky, even more so the longer it goes on before calling Article 50.
surely it's the nuclear option she's planning for though? Ie, let the March deadline get screwed over while making noises about how it's all moaning Remainers' fault for thwarting the will of the people. Move a writ for dissolution end of March, election first week of May, thumping majority, goodnight Brussels.
Of course, as the Daily Mash pointed out yesterday, the main reason she doesn't want to do that is that it would be a waste of a perfectly good Jeremy Corbyn from her point of view...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Mr Cheesy: quote:
If May goes to the polls, that'd be a very clever not stupid thing to do. And what would the electorate think if Labour MPs voted against repealing fixed-term governments in a situation like that?
An article in the Indie (sorry can't find link) was definite that there's no need to repeal the Act. She has the power to put a resolution that states, more or less, "notwithstanding the FTG Act, due to the circumstances, the next General Election will be on . .whenever".
It may be a bit cheeky but it appears to be possible.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Repealing the fixed term act would take us back to all future PMs deciding when to hold an election (until such a time as a new fixed term act is passed, if a future government decides to do that). What's needed is an exception made, without repealing the Act, such that we have a May 2017 election, then the next election in May 2022 sticking to the 5 year cycle.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Alan C: quote:
First, the Scottish independence referendum was called by a government which wanted independence
Well, yes. That is a good point.
Which makes one realise how royally the Labour party has screwed up, even though Cameron is the main culprit.
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015, and are now totaly at 6's and 7's with most of them too scared to continue to back Remain out of fear of losing their seats.
The world's going mad. The Republicans backed about the only person that Hilary could beat, the Labour party elected a muppet followed by more of a muppet.
I'm surprised nobody has launched the conspiracy theory that Len McCluskey is being paid by the Tories!
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I'm surprised nobody has launched the conspiracy theory that Len McCluskey is being paid by the Tories!
I know people who think (some more genuinely than others) that Jeremy might be...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,
Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015, and are now totaly at 6's and 7's with most of them too scared to continue to back Remain out of fear of losing their seats.
To a point. Though the reason the Tories have a majority is because the Lib Dems went from 57 to 8 seats.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
By self-destructing in Scotland, they made it into a separatist quasi-Quebec territory, allowed Cameron to win in 2015,
Not quite true. Even if Labour had won every Scottish seat the Tories would still have had the same majority.
I assume the "separatist quasi-Quebec territory" statement refers to the general election result where Scotland turned almost entirely yellow, largely as a result of the total collapse of the Labour vote (though, several previously strong LibDem seats went as well, so it wasn't all down to the collapse of Labour). Though, not quite reflected in the Scottish Parliament where the SNP didn't quite scrape a majority of seats - but where the Labour collapse let the Tories in as the opposition.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
What i mainly meant by the reference to Quebec is that Scotland, like Quebec, has a separatist administration. Ok the Tories share the guilt, having a decent Scottish representation pre Thatcher.
As to the last election, i think the scare tactic of demonising a Labour/SDP alliance made a significant difference.
I!m also pissed off by the lack still of unbiassed reporting, particularly on Daily Politics which I've always liked. Fot two days running the statement has been made unchallenged that the Norway opion is the same as not leaving, which is plain false.
But I'm rambling. Time for a break.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
What i mainly meant by the reference to Quebec is that Scotland, like Quebec, has a separatist administration. Ok the Tories share the guilt, having a decent Scottish representation pre Thatcher.
*snip*
Québec had a separatist ministry-- but not since 2014 (although some would argue that the minority Marois ministry of 2012-4 was not separatist, given that it was in a minority).
*end of Canadian trivia tangent*
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
Here's a controversial thought:
Most people voted to remain part of the EU.
Let me explain. As is now becoming evident, despite the on-going disingenuosness of the government there is not just one 'leave' option but several. For the sake of arugment I will be generous and call it two options. Though in reality the Leave campaign came up with so many...
1) Leave the EU and become members of the EEA and thus accept the rules of the single market and make a contribution to the budget.
2) Leave the EU and not join the EEA. Have no formal relationship with the EU.
It is very dangerous to claim anything about why people voted a particular way. Even if there is polling evidence it is never clear cut in the way and election result is.
However, I will stipulate that at least 5% of those who voted to leave the EU wanted some kind of 'Norway-like' relationship whilst some wanted nothing at all to do with the EU. Hence more people voted to remain than for the other choices.
The problem of course is that the referendum was so bungled from start to finish and the only options on the ballot paper were leave or remain.
However it is a statistical inevitability that less than 48% of those who voted wanted to end up with what is being unhelpfully-termed a 'hard brexit'
This matters simply because I am so fed up of the Leavers who ran a fact-free, completely dishonest campaign with mutually exclusive claims of what a post-brexit Britain would look like claiming they have a mandate from the people.
This is simply bollocks. (My apologies for using the technical term).
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think that there is almost certainly a majority in the country for a soft Brexit. If you add remainers (48%) to liberal leavers you are almost certainly over the 50% mark. One of the many, many vexing things about the Referendum result is that the government are going to try to take us out of the EU in a way that is unacceptable to the majority of the electorate and, by the time the deal has been done and dusted, the electoral majority which voted for Leave will be altered by demographics as the Baby Boomers die off and the younger generation take their place on the electoral roll.
You will note that analysis does not include buyers remorse. After the 1992 General Election polling companies noted something interesting. Attempts to get representative cross sections of the public were foundering on the question: "Who did you vote for in the 1992 General Election". A sufficiently significant number of respondents were lying about having not voted for the Conservatives that the joke was that clearly the result on the night had been the result of an administrative error and that Mr Kinnock should be ensconced in Number 10. I rather suspect that YouGov, et. al. will face a similar phenomenon in the not too distant future.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Thanks for the correction, augustine.
Alienfromzog: i think you are right that a majority of the electorate would prefer to stay, and the biggest buyers remorse should be on remainers who couldnt be arsed to vote.
But i dont see the norway opion as equivalent to remaining unless you assume that it would be permanent. I dont know about norway but assume that a big incentive was their fishing industry.
Most soft brexiteers want the same endgame as the hardies, but think doing it quickly is daft, so you end up nearly in, but gradually get out re ECJ which will mean in the endgame out of the single market. EEA also exclude the customs union so it is misleading to equate it with remaining.
I totally agree that going from where we are to EEA in perpetuity is as pointless as melon.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
[T]he biggest buyers remorse should be on remainers who couldnt be arsed to vote.
Presumably there are quite a few voters who voted Remain because of Project Fear and have now realised that we haven't entered recession, there was no punishment budget, house prices haven't collapsed by 18% and World War 3 hasn't broken out.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper. A 20% reduction in the value of the pound isn't exactly trivial. And, there are already other effects being felt - mostly relating to appointing qualified staff to fill vacancies, since EU citizens are reluctant to come to the UK without guarantees that they'll be here for more than a couple of years.
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
I guess it will be either a higher level of inflation next year, or stagflation as well. Brexit does not have a zero cost. Right now, we're not sure how much.
Just wait and see what happens when Article 50 is eventually signed. The markets will tell the rest of us just how optimistic they are. And eighteen months later, the general public will realise just how big is the pig in the poke they bought. But by then, it will be too late.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There's a problem in the above posts that has not been addressed. The EU has made it clear that there are to be no negotiations until the Art 50 notice has been given. Inherent in that is that the EU sees that it will then have the upper hand in the negotiations - and it will. Time starts from the moment that notice is given.
Given that, the most which can be done in a parliamentary vote is to approve giving notice. That notice must be absolute, and can't be worded on the basis that Britain will leave on a particular basis.
(As an aside, and I don't want to go down this path again, but that is also a problem with Alan Cresswell's argument that the referendum should have been conducted along the lines he's presented.)
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Host
# 9110
|
Posted
@ Gee D
I think that very point should have been the subject of serious debate pre-Referendum.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Humble Servant
Shipmate
# 18391
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Given that, the most which can be done in a parliamentary vote is to approve giving notice.
Or refuse such approval. 17.4 million out of a population of 63.5 million is hardly an overwhelming mandate. It's time someone had the guts to say that.
[ 08. November 2016, 20:45: Message edited by: Humble Servant ]
Posts: 241 | Registered: Apr 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
That's the argument now. At the time it was suggested that merely voting for Brexit would cause catastrophe, hence the punishment budget apparently scheduled for the week following a Leave vote.
quote:
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
They could have applied for a postal vote?
[ 08. November 2016, 20:53: Message edited by: Anglican't ]
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
That's the argument now. At the time it was suggested that merely voting for Brexit would cause catastrophe, hence the punishment budget apparently scheduled for the week following a Leave vote.
Perhaps because "Project Fear" was not as evident north of the border I must have missed the Chancellor state that he was preparing an emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. Though the Bank of England was very quick in cutting interest rates, as though my savings weren't paying a pittance already.
There was a lot of nonsense said in the papers, on both sides of the debate. But, I tended to ignore the more stupid comments.
quote:
quote:
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
They could have applied for a postal vote?
Yes, they could have. Though I guess that since they were also sitting and preparing for exams they might have had other things to worry about than filing the paperwork for a postal ballot - which, of course, wouldn't guarantee them a vote anyway (of three elections while I was in Japan there was only one where the ballot papers arrived in time for me to vote and I assume they got back in time - I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Well, we've yet to light the blue touch paper.
That's the argument now. At the time it was suggested that merely voting for Brexit would cause catastrophe, hence the punishment budget apparently scheduled for the week following a Leave vote.
Perhaps because "Project Fear" was not as evident north of the border I must have missed the Chancellor state that he was preparing an emergency budget in the event of a Leave vote. Though the Bank of England was very quick in cutting interest rates, as though my savings weren't paying a pittance already.
There was a lot of nonsense said in the papers, on both sides of the debate. But, I tended to ignore the more stupid comments.
quote:
quote:
In addition to those who didn't bother to vote there is quite a large number who couldn't vote. It's been reported a lot of students had difficulties, since they had registered to vote where they study but the vote was after the end of term.
They could have applied for a postal vote?
Yes, they could have. Though I guess that since they were also sitting and preparing for exams they might have had other things to worry about than filing the paperwork for a postal ballot - which, of course, wouldn't guarantee them a vote anyway (of three elections while I was in Japan there was only one where the ballot papers arrived in time for me to vote and I assume they got back in time - I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
I don't understand this whole "disenfranchised students" argument, since students studying away from home are entitled to be on the electoral register at both their term time address and their permanent home address.
The only disenfranchised student I came across had gone on a rather stereotypical summer travel experience. Nothing to do with the electoral register. And he could have got his parents to vote by proxy for him.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't understand this whole "disenfranchised students" argument, since students studying away from home are entitled to be on the electoral register at both their term time address and their permanent home address.
Sorry, I failed to notice a new post on this thread.
Over recent years there has been a laudable movement to encourage and help non-voters to register to vote, and (obviously) put their vote in. A large part of that has been targeting students - for obvious reasons that most come to university never having voted (due to age) and a university can get the message across to a lot of people at one go. The people involved in those university centred voter education have been from the local electoral registration office, and hence students have registered to vote in their university town. Most times that's not a problem, because elections outwith term time are very unusual. In this referendum the message that they would need to either re-register at their out of term time address, arrange to be in the university town on polling day, or arrange a postal or proxy vote was, in many cases, not clearly communicated (communication being two way, involving both talking and listening). I've not seen any detailed study of how many people were involved, but there has been a lot of anecdotes circulating around social media and various academic/university newslists. Personally, all the students I've had dealings with since June are either doctoral students and hence fulltime resident (so not affected) or were not eligible to vote at all (common with most UK universities we have a high proportion of non-UK students - so are likely to face tough times with Brexit and other restrictions on students from overseas cutting available funds and making some courses unviable). Probably not enough people to have made a difference, but part of a larger picture of people who were in various ways denied a vote.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
What I came back to this thread for ...
Trump spoke a lot about a "new Brexit" in his campaign. So, my question.
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump?
Well yes in at least one case: Farage. And I'm sure that it was another thing that added to the wave of grievances and "anti-establishment" feelings.
quote:
Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
Are those who voted in another ballot in another country responsible for a presidential result they were not involved in another country? No, that's ridiculous.
What is probably true is that there are deep wells of unease within communities of people in similar situations who appear to be attracted by loud-mouth right-wing cartoon anti-politicians to register a protest at the political establishment which doesn't seem to be doing anything about their situation.
But the USA is not the UK, which is not Italy, which is not France. The fact that fascism is on the rise in all these places is a symptom of something very bad in many countries - it isn't a coincidence that these votes are happening close together, but I think it is a stretch to say the one is somehow responsible for another (other than in the domino effect).
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I think it helps her cause above all by legitimising her stance.
The Overton window shifting or something; if it can happen in the US, the plausibility of it happening here increases.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think Trump helps Le Pen. I'm not sure, though, that Brexit did very much to help Trump.
AJP Taylor wrote in his autobiography that he, and the other original members of CND, thought that if the UK unilaterally disarmed other countries would be sufficiently moved by our moral example to follow suit. He later realised that this was unlikely, ruefully, observing "we were the last imperialists". The point being, that the time when the UK was a great moral exemplar for anyone was long gone. I think the same logic applies to Brexit.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I think Trump helps Le Pen. I'm not sure, though, that Brexit did very much to help Trump.
AJP Taylor wrote in his autobiography that he, and the other original members of CND, thought that if the UK unilaterally disarmed other countries would be sufficiently moved by our moral example to follow suit. He later realised that this was unlikely, ruefully, observing "we were the last imperialists". The point being, that the time when the UK was a great moral exemplar for anyone was long gone. I think the same logic applies to Brexit.
Great quote from Taylor. I guess that the liberal left still held with British exceptionalism, and this has been slow to erode. Brexit seems imbued with the same idiocy, although more from a right wing point of view. People are bound to want to do trade deals with us, because we are British, and we drive on the left, or something.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I came back to this thread for ...
Trump spoke a lot about a "new Brexit" in his campaign. So, my question.
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
The rest of the world pays attention to US politics. I don't find it terribly credible that Americans would pay a great deal of attention to international politics.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
Not much. I think by far the strongest effect is that Brexit and Trump both got a chunk of support from ordinary working people who felt screwed over by internationalization, and wanted to vote for a big dollop of protectionism.
But I don't think it would have made a difference to Trump's election if Brexit had gone 52-48 the other way.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I know others who are overseas for whom even a 1 in 3 voting rate would be considered high).
I resemble that remark. I'm 0 for 4 on getting ballot papers on time. The earliest I've received a ballot has been the day of the election; the latest has been two days after the fact.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
I see that there is a growing coalition of MPs seeking to put the final version of Brexit back to the electorate (currently 84 MPs). Perhaps more interesting (given that 84 MPs are not going to get their way), in reporting this The Telegraph includes a readers poll which currently has 56% in support of a second referendum. Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I see that there is a growing coalition of MPs seeking to put the final version of Brexit back to the electorate (currently 84 MPs). Perhaps more interesting (given that 84 MPs are not going to get their way), in reporting this The Telegraph includes a readers poll which currently has 56% in support of a second referendum. Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
I had to read that twice.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
Except it's not though, is it? Newspaper polling like that is even less worthy of the time of day than the official polling industry - at least they *try* and weight participant samples. These days, every pro-EU social media warrior just needs to share that link around their personal echo chamber and get voting.* Any link between a poll on the Telegraph website and the views of Telegraph readers is likely to be accidental at best.
*not a political point, my contempt for "click here open internet polling on newspaper websites" is universal regardless of subject. If Peter Snow was commentating on that poll he'd be trotting out his election night "remember, this isn't scientific, it's just a bit of fun" line...
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
What I came back to this thread for ...
Trump spoke a lot about a "new Brexit" in his campaign. So, my question.
Did the success of Leave provide support and encouragement for the anti-establishment movement in the US that helped boost support for Trump? Are those who voted Leave partly responsible for Trump being President elect?
The rest of the world pays attention to US politics. I don't find it terribly credible that Americans would pay a great deal of attention to international politics.
Some of us do. I'm working in the financial industry at the mo and believe me, there was and is a lot of attention paid. And of course, lots of us have family there.
I can't tell you about the effect on our election, though, as I don't think anybody has convincingly worked out precisely what happened and why. Lots of theories, of course.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Yes, that's Telegraph readers wanting a second referendum.
Except it's not though, is it?
Yes, I know. It's not exclusively Telegraph readers voting, it's not scientific, etc. It's just a bit of fun.
But, it is quite amusing to have something on the Telegraph website in favour of a second referendum, isn't it?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
To go back to basics, the most that could possibly go to a second referendum would be the negotiating position of the UK. It can't be the final agreement - that can't be reached until after the Article 50 notice is given.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
Which is what should have been what was on the referendum in June. Except, if it had been put to us in June that position would have been defined by the Leave campaign, whereas now it will be defined by the government and Parliament (the majority of whom campaigned for Remain, and excludes many prominent Leavers).
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
betjemaniac
Shipmate
# 17618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
whereas now it will be defined by the government and Parliament (the majority of whom campaigned for Remain, and excludes many prominent Leavers).
with a backward glance to their constituencies (many of which voted to leave) to think about how much they'd like to still be in Parliament after the next general election. Frankly I can't decide if that's better or worse... A hard Brexit enacted by Remainers would be the ultimate irony.
[ 16. November 2016, 07:04: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]
--------------------
And is it true? For if it is....
Posts: 1481 | From: behind the dreaming spires | Registered: Mar 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
Meanwhile the Dutch finance minister has said that Boris' statements about Brexit are "intellectually impossible".
Which I suppose puts us back into post-truth territory. No doubt Boris, May and the others will try to spin these and other recent statements by EU leaders (some of which said that it would be impossible to agree anything other than a "hard Brexit" for the UK) as playing poker in order to get the best possible deal.
Back in the real world, it doesn't feel like that. Those politicians do not appear to be thinking that all will be aOK after Brexit. Indeed, some have said that they're expecting economic pain. They just seem to have accepted that the UK must pay the price of Brexit otherwise the whole notion of an EU is dead.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
