|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Bloody Brexiteers
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Alan:
It looks to me as though the nuance is in the "constitutional relationship" to the UK, whatever that means.
The Crown Dependencies' relationship appears to be an informal but long-standing historical one with the Crown (as I informally understand it, the Channel Islands did not side with the Magna Carta barons and got independent government in return*) as opposed to being a dependent territory, which appears to be more formal.
Gibraltar joined the EU as a dependent territory of the UK, which the Channel Islands are not, so that's why it got a vote.
==
*Another story told is that they were so small they got left off some Anglo-Norman treaty by mistake...
[ 03. September 2016, 08:49: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out.
Haven't you just described a football match with a clear result?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's a bit ironic that Euroskeptics have been moaning about the EU for 40 years, and now those against Brexit are being admonished for complaining, after two months!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm not sure quite how the decision was made to include Gibraltar in the referendum but not the Channel Islands or Man, or for that matter other British Overseas Territories - Akrotiri and Dhekelia in particular (the others not being geographically close to Europe could probably be excluded on those grounds).
For the latter, according to this truly fascinating* page, they are not listed as overseas countries and territories in the Treaty of Rome. Probably because they were military bases.
==
*How to waste a morning. Who knew that Heligoland was part of the EU but not of the Customs Union or the VAT area?
[ 03. September 2016, 08:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out. If that happens in a major championship the backpages of the newspapers and the fans will spend practically forever discussing every little incident during the game which might have produced a different result, one way or the other. Why should that be allowed for a stupid football match, but not for a major constitutional change?
LOL. As has been already pointed out, that IS a football match with a clear result.
And all of that endless discussion afterwards doesn't change that, does it?
I'm not laying into you for discussion, I'm laying into you for the tone that says "maybe we can change the result". Nobody discusses England's latest shock exit from a football tournament with a "maybe we can change the result" mindset. No, they discuss it with full knowledge of the result and all the forensic discussion afterwards is about whose fault it was.
Frankly I expect better from you than a terrible analogy that you can't even keep straight for the length of the post.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
The way I feel about it at the moment is something like this.
A referendum is declared about whether we should fly to mars. During the entire debate leading up to it, no-one ever says how it will be achieved, and the question is always waved away - successfully because the option captures the public mood which is looking for an escape, and in any case, for reasons not well understood by most, those campaigning against the proposition spent their entire time pointing out that the atmosphere on Mars is poisonous, rather than pointing out the complete lack of any proposal in the proposition as to how it would be achieved.
The proposition is endorsed by referendum. So naturally, everyone turns to those who made the propostion and asks how it will be achieved. "We don't know - just go and stand in the street and flap. If it doesn't work, that's anti-democratic". Of course it doesn't. They then make a whole series of other ridiculous propositions which completely fail to take into account other objective conditions, such as gravity, but their only response to any challenge is "that's anti-democratic". The entire situation rapidly descends into something poised delicately between tragedy and total farce, and the country in which the referendum was held looks utterly ridiculous, and the rest of the world points and laughs.
That's why I'm not lying down and taking it. I so hope that's OK with you - meanwhile, I will take your antipodean opinion under advisement.
The bit of your particular mindset that fascinates me is how you and others expressing similar thoughts never examine whether any of the things you keep saying about referendums make them any different from general elections.
I'd truly love to see a general election where all the policies are mapped out in this kind of concrete detail, nobody ever changes what they're doing 5 minutes after they're elected etc. etc.
But that's not what actually happens. It's not so much that I think your criticisms of the referendum are invalid per se, it's that I think they're invalid as some kind of distinction between "bad" referendums and "good" regular democracy.
The political gamesmanship involved in a referendum campaign is not at all different from the political gamesmanship involved in any other voting campaign, and I'm thoroughly bemused by the consistent attempts at presenting the referendum as some kind of special case where the system suddenly went horribly wrong.
[ 03. September 2016, 09:29: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect. The oil tanker, if we allow it to leave dock, is set in motion for a generation or more: every 40 years is probably the most often it can change tack. It involves re-negotiating a huge raft of international treaties and indeed our whole place in the world. To return to the oil tanker analogy, no one has actually charted it a new course, or demonstrated that this course will not lead to its total destruction, so further debate is perfectly natural, and indeed essential.
Thus, because of its objective effects, rather than because of the process, it's fundamentally different from the colour of rosette worn by the donkey in no. 10. That is in a state of constant flux as a result of the already established party political process, and there are elements of inertia in that process which act to protect the country as a whole from its ebbs and flows. No such protective mechanism is in place for the results of this disastrous, ill-conceived and inconclusive piece of political theatre gone wrong.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]LOL. As has been already pointed out, that IS a football match with a clear result.
Take your contempt and shove it firmly up your advisement.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
OK. So, we have a decision which would not survive most processes for decisions of similar gravity (many referendums elsewhere (in countries whose constitution can survive referendums) have a requirement for a 60% majority and/or a majority of all those eligible to vote), no clear proposal as to its implementation, and no possibility of reversing it as part of the normal political process. How could continuing opposition to such a clearly delineated decision which integrates so easily into the established constitution and political cycle possibly be justified? Beats me.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
He's baaaa-aaack! ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Hi, orfeo. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
God, some of you people are funny. Referendums undemocratic because there's a winner and loser?
No, the question isn't was there a winner or not. Clearly Brexiters won, they got more votes. The question that was asked is whether that could be called a "clear result". What we have is the equivalent of a football match that has gone through extra time and is settled by a penalty shoot out.
Haven't you just described a football match with a clear result?
No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
I know, it's a shit analogy. But, orfeo introduced the close sporting fixtures, I simply ran with the ball.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd truly love to see a general election where all the policies are mapped out in this kind of concrete detail, nobody ever changes what they're doing 5 minutes after they're elected etc. etc.
In a general election, it is normal for each party to produce a manifesto outlining what they would try to do if elected to form a government. Often, in quite significant detail. OK, so we know that circumstances will mean some of those policies will never see the light of day, and that policies which aren't on the manifesto will be brought forward. Some of those circumstances include a strong Opposition managing to produce strong arguments that encourage Government MPs to abstain or vote against their own party. Other circumstances include changes in the economy and other external circumstances. But, we know in outline what each party would do if elected.
This referendum had no such equivalent outline of what the Brexiters would do if they won the referendum. We still don't know what the form of UK exit from the EU we will have, or where the UK will be heading.
--------------------
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
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'd truly love to see a general election where all the policies are mapped out in this kind of concrete detail, nobody ever changes what they're doing 5 minutes after they're elected etc. etc.
In a general election, it is normal for each party to produce a manifesto outlining what they would try to do if elected to form a government. Often, in quite significant detail. OK, so we know that circumstances will mean some of those policies will never see the light of day, and that policies which aren't on the manifesto will be brought forward. Some of those circumstances include a strong Opposition managing to produce strong arguments that encourage Government MPs to abstain or vote against their own party. Other circumstances include changes in the economy and other external circumstances. But, we know in outline what each party would do if elected.
This referendum had no such equivalent outline of what the Brexiters would do if they won the referendum. We still don't know what the form of UK exit from the EU we will have, or where the UK will be heading.
Worse still, the referendum addressed a single issue. Governments have to handle any number of issues in a coordinated manner but now, thanks to one stupid notion for which I hold David Cameron responsible, the government's policies, as if they weren't bad enough already, have been derailed by the referendum result which let's face it was conducted in the spirit of a nationwide by-election and as in by-elections the protest vote loomed large.
Once again the protest vote won, but instead of electing an unexpected MP, it threw out the last forty years of laws, treaties, policies and administration.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I'm not sure why we are expected to treat the result of a referendum with the devout meekness, with which Roman Catholics are expected to treat infallible pronouncements of the Pontiff. For one thing it was the overturning of a previous referendum vote. If referenda are infallible, then we voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975 and no mere mortal should have questioned the vox populi. If referenda are not infallible then this one is as open to question as the previous one.
Somebody. at this point, will doubtless say "oh, but we voted to stay in the Common Market, we didn't sign up for the EU and all its works". Good point. Well, when the British people realise that they did not sign up for the racist recession, they are perfectly at liberty to change their mind.
And does anybody, seriously, think that if the result had gone the other way the Brexiteers would have solemnly announced that they were going to submit themselves to the popular will. Would they hell. They would have all been: "We are the 48%, one more heave comrades!" See the outcome of the Scottish Independence Referendum for a rough analogy. Frankly, I don't see why we should accept a discipline to which our enemies would not have dreamed of submitting themselves. Beaches, landing grounds, fields, streets, hills. Marlo Stansfield is an asshole. He does not get to win. We get to win.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
It's a different case because it's not reversible at the next election if we don't like the effect.
There are plenty of things that elected governments have done that are not reversible simply by voting them out at the next election. Most of the more important things they do, the "reforms" they carry out, don't disappear with a change of government.
OK. So, we have a decision which would not survive most processes for decisions of similar gravity (many referendums elsewhere (in countries whose constitution can survive referendums) have a requirement for a 60% majority and/or a majority of all those eligible to vote), no clear proposal as to its implementation, and no possibility of reversing it as part of the normal political process. How could continuing opposition to such a clearly delineated decision which integrates so easily into the established constitution and political cycle possibly be justified? Beats me.
Oh, you can WHINE about it all you like. You just can't wave your magic wand and get a second vote.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
Clearly FIFA has not got your memo. Nor indeed has the organiser of any sporting tournament that has a knockout format.
You also seem to have a hazy idea of what a "draw" involves. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that 17 million and 16 million are equal numbers.
Here are some other cases where two numbers are not equal:
2 is bigger than 1
179 is bigger than 178
2,357 is bigger than 2,356
4,567,832,356 is bigger than 4,567,832,355
You seem under this weird apprehension that a win isn't "clear" because numbers are close, whereas most people who weren't trying to comfort themselves over a loss would understand that a win isn't "clear' when the numbers are indeterminate.
You're a scientist aren't you?. If you went around claiming numbers were "equal" when they were clearly different your colleagues would be raising their eyebrows. You can say that numbers are "about equal" when there's some margin of error involved. But unless you think there's evidence of a margin of error involved in counting votes, sufficient to overcome a gap between 17,410,742 and 16,141,241, then you're clutching at straws here.
A difference of over a million votes IS clear, one number is clearly greater than the other, and whether it was a close game or a thrashing makes no difference to whether or not there's an entry in the win column. Your insistence that 17.41m versus 16.14m is some kind of "draw" borders on fantasy.
[ 03. September 2016, 11:06: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Callan:
I'm not sure why we are expected to treat the result of a referendum with the devout meekness, with which Roman Catholics are expected to treat infallible pronouncements of the Pontiff. For one thing it was the overturning of a previous referendum vote. If referenda are infallible, then we voted to stay in the Common Market in 1975 and no mere mortal should have questioned the vox populi. If referenda are not infallible then this one is as open to question as the previous one.
You seem completely confused between arguing whether the result of the referendum was good, and what the result of the referendum was.
I'm not asking you to behave as if the pronouncement of the Pontiff is infallible. I'm asking you to acknowledge what the text of his speech was.
[ 03. September 2016, 11:09: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
He's baaaa-aaack! Hi, orfeo.
Yo.
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
You can still take your contempt and shove it.
You have lost every last shred of respect from me, except in relation to your hostly duties. You are just another cloth-eared, soulless "bantzer" who doesn't listen to anything other than the sound of his own marvellous ability to be snide in the face of the suffering of others.
Yes it is suffering. Our country is about to be maimed out of recognition. Something other than meek submission or bantz is called for.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I recently read an article, I can't remember the exact title, but the general discussion was "why hasn't the sky fallen in on the UK economy since the vote when everybody told us it would?"
I'll see if I can find it again. Worth considering a read if you can shake your blind panic for a minute.
[ 03. September 2016, 11:40: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
There's another March for Europe in London today - I got a begging e-mail asking for funding, but no, I'm not playing/paying because this is not the way forward. I got flagged on this one from campaigning before the vote, but the vote has happened and we now need to sort out the mess we're in.
Yes, it was a referendum for a constitutional change and probably should have had a required majority and turn out, if the country had a proper constitution. Charitable orders of incorporation usually insist on two votes at successive meetings within a time frame, a quorum and a two thirds majority for a constitutional change (if they follow the recommendations from the Charity Commissioners), but when did the UK have a proper constitution?
We're in a "well I wouldn't start from here" situation but we have had a majority vote to leave, however small the majority, so we need to work out how to leave the EU.
We can blame Cameron and his cronies in incompetence for putting us in this position - by not drawing up a clear proposal to vote on, for not requiring a reasonable turnout and majority to make a constitutional change and all the rest, but he's gone and discredited now, so that's just wasting time in regrets.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I recently read an article, I can't remember the exact title, but the general discussion was "why hasn't the sky fallen in on the UK economy since the vote when everybody told us it would?"
I'll see if I can find it again. Worth considering a read if you can shake your blind panic for a minute.
The sky hasn't fallen in because nothing other than an advisory vote has happened so far. No one has yet even come up with a credible mechanism by which we will leave the EU, never mind a holistic picture of what the economic future will look like and how we will build it. Given the way political debate is carried out at the moment, where 10 minutes constitutes a long-term forecast, it comes as no surprise to me that reactions to a prospective event have not been extreme.
Indeed, if you look at the way that reactions to the Syria crisis went, we will probably have to wait for a meme-able photograph, e.g. of an iconic City building sitting empty, before any extreme reaction occurs. This process has been reality-proof throughout, and I see no reason why it should change now.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This process has been reality-proof throughout, and I see no reason why it should change now.
Your notion of "reality" is your prediction of the future.
By all means, if in a few years the UK has plummeted down the world quality-of-living tables and everyone is emigrating to find jobs in Ireland and Portugal, point out that your predictions have come true. But they're not "reality" now, they're your vision of the future.
And unless you're claiming some kind of spiritual gift of prophecy (and also misunderstanding the nature of what Biblical prophecy was, because it wasn't just an exercise in predicting the future), views on the likely future of the UK, however considered, are not "reality".
--------------------
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
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
This process has been reality-proof throughout, and I see no reason why it should change now.
Your notion of "reality" is your prediction of the future.
By all means, if in a few years the UK has plummeted down the world quality-of-living tables and everyone is emigrating to find jobs in Ireland and Portugal, point out that your predictions have come true. But they're not "reality" now, they're your vision of the future.
And unless you're claiming some kind of spiritual gift of prophecy (and also misunderstanding the nature of what Biblical prophecy was, because it wasn't just an exercise in predicting the future), views on the likely future of the UK, however considered, are not "reality".
True, but at the same time, there is at least a predictable cause which has a chance of leading to that effect. Take away this particular part of the economic system, and then this other part doesn't work and that leads to this.
My point is that the collapse hasn't happened because nothing about observable reality has yet changed, other than an increase in racist attacks. Let something observable change, and the fundamentally psychological process by which the economy works, because it is just a monetary expression of society, means that the effects will follow. At the moment, they are still too conceptual to be expressed in the economic system.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem under this weird apprehension that a win isn't "clear" because numbers are close, whereas most people who weren't trying to comfort themselves over a loss would understand that a win isn't "clear' when the numbers are indeterminate.
What a shame you weren't around solving all of Ulster's problems when the 'losing' minority of Roman Catholics were being 'oppresssed' by the 'winning' majority of Protestants; thus obviating any struggle for civil rights, and over thirty years of terrorism. All that was needed, apparently, was your little genius voice piping up, 'Hard shit, guys, they outnumber you! Suck it up!'
Or do you see the way that in fact these things aren't entirely as single-brain-cell-required-for-functioning clear as you think it is? No, probably not.
quote:
A difference of over a million votes IS clear, one number is clearly greater than the other, and whether it was a close game or a thrashing makes no difference to whether or not there's an entry in the win column. Your insistence that 17.41m versus 16.14m is some kind of "draw" borders on fantasy.
Except - once again - it's not. As you'll remember from my last post, well over one million more people in Northern Ireland requested to remain and it didn't matter, because of the voting of the other UK member nations.
Northern Ireland has its own distinct and practically separate relationship to the EU, as does England, as does Wales, as does Scotland. Each population relates in widely differing ways because each population has its own forms of government, culture, history and financial priorities. No-one can even begin to guess, let alone effectively formulate, the details of how exiting from the EU will affect each separate community nation.
Your simplistic 'the bigger number trumps the smaller number' shit is what is fantastical. It completely ignores the complexity of the issue, and the human and political factors involved.
This isn't an 'oh dear, another four years of some overpaid tosser at the despatch box, to put up with'. It's a leap into the unknown, headed by a government whose own pro-exiters where unable to come up with a plan for what comes next, beyond putting the bunting back in the box and recyclying the celebration champagne bottles.
It may not turn out to be the worst thing in the world for the UK. Indeed, for the civil service, the beaurocrats, and the gravy-trainers it's manna from heaven. But, for some of us, if it really is supposed to be the best way forward, it would be good to know 'why'. So far nobody seems to have answered that question.
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rocinante
Shipmate
# 18541
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
This isn't an 'oh dear, another four years of some overpaid tosser at the despatch box, to put up with'.
Even if it were, there would be opposition MP's to hold the tosser to account, and possibly prevent him from doing the more tosser-ish things on his agenda. As it is, because it was a referendum there is no such democratic mechanism to represent the views of the large minority. One day, one narrow vote and the Brexiteers get to determine the course of our nation's history for the foreseeable future, however the views of the public may change in the interim, and however the world situation may evolve.
Posts: 384 | From: UK | Registered: Jan 2016
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
It may not turn out to be the worst thing in the world for the UK. Indeed, for the civil service, the beaurocrats, and the gravy-trainers it's manna from heaven. But, for some of us, if it really is supposed to be the best way forward, it would be good to know 'why'. So far nobody seems to have answered that question.
It's a buggers' muddle for the civil service. There are two new departments working towards a Brexit future, while the others have to work in the existing EU framework and look towards the (as yet unspecified) future.
As for "the best way forward", the departments headed by Fox and Davis have to devise these but they are in a rotten negotiating position as the PM has declared that Britain is leaving come what may. There is therefore no incentive for any other country to be anything other than entirely selfish. It will I'm afraid be a lousy thing for the UK, unless being dictated to by every other country on earth is in our best interests.
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
If, in two years, when the exit mechanism is actually ground into gear and things start to looking like something the doomsayers were predicting, then I should have thought Labour will be gifted an Election victory in May 2020.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rocinante:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
This isn't an 'oh dear, another four years of some overpaid tosser at the despatch box, to put up with'.
Even if it were, there would be opposition MP's to hold the tosser to account, and possibly prevent him from doing the more tosser-ish things on his agenda. As it is, because it was a referendum there is no such democratic mechanism to represent the views of the large minority.
Except, since a referendum is an exercise in mass democracy rather than representative democracy then the equivalent to opposition MPs holding the government to account would be the people who did not vote for Brexit (and, since handing the whole process over to people who were not entirely keen on the idea, the people who voted for Brexit). If we're going to bypass the regular processes of representative democracy then it's only logical for the people to also bypass the regular processes of Opposition for direct popular action - protests on the streets, signing petitions, writing to MPs, etc.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
No, because a football match, like Test Cricket, should be allowed to produce a draw if neither team has outplayed the opposition enough to score more goals at the end of play. A penalty shoot out (or the variations of extra time, golden goal etc) are mechanisms to get a result when there has been no clear winner at full time. Therefore, it's a result, just not a clear one.
Clearly FIFA has not got your memo. Nor indeed has the organiser of any sporting tournament that has a knockout format.
As I said, it's a mechanism to ensure a result for sports where a draw would otherwise be a regular outcome. I've never met a football fan who actually likes a game being decided by a penalty shoot out, it's an unsatisfactory necessity.
quote:
You also seem to have a hazy idea of what a "draw" involves. I'm sorry, but this is the first time I've heard that 17 million and 16 million are equal numbers.
As I said, the "close sporting result" was your analogy, not mine. It's poor because the score is the ultimate result of a football match, but if instead of asking "who won?" you ask "which was the better team?" then the answer may not be reflected in the score, especially when very close. The final score involves various factors that may not reflect the quality of the teams and how they played, there is an element of luck in any sport - a bounce of the ball that goes particularly favourably, a marginal judgement call by the referee, a player stumbling, etc.
But, still working with the imperfect analogy, a close referendum result (and, 1 million from an island of almost 60m is not very large) there is no way that the result can possibly reflect a clear difference in the quality of the arguments presented by both sides. Even worse, both sides were alliances of different parties, with different views, and so it wasn't really two teams anyway. We had different versions of Brexit on one side, and different versions of Remain on the other. With a binary choice, the vote can't say anything about what version of Brexit or Remain that we voted for.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
Re football matches and referenda:
It's quite straightforward. The result is "clear" in the sense that there is no uncertainty about what it was. There was a vote, and one side got a million votes more than the other side. Just like a football match, or an Olympic hockey final, that is won on penalties. There is no debate about what the result was.
But "clear" has other meanings. You can view a referendum (or an election) as a measurement of the collective opinion of the populace, just as you can view a sporting match as a measurement of the relative quality of the two teams. And on that basis, a match that goes to penalties doesn't give you a clear indication of which team is better, and a narrow victory for one side in an election doesn't really give you an indication of which side the population prefers - all you can really say for certain is that opinions are fairly evenly split.
So if you want to view the referendum as a means of determining what the British public thinks about Brexit, the only safe conclusion is that opinions are fairly evenly divided.
It's this kind of thinking that motivates people's desire for a supermajority to make a change - if you get a 60-40 result in an election, you can be pretty certain that a re-run would get the same result. If you get a narrow victory, you might get a narrow victory for the other side the following week.
But as I said earlier,
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
No, because if I'd been in charge so it actually mattered what I called it, I'd have said at the outset that a 2/3 majority would be required for what is a massive constitutional change. This is common practice, is it not?
No, not really.
The recent referendum in Scotland - a potential constitutional change of similar magnitude - required only a simple majority of those voting. The 1975 referendum in support of joining the EEC required only a simple majority. The 2011 Alternative vote referendum required only a simple majority of those voting. All the referenda on devolution for Wales required only a simple majority.
I don't think there's any kind of precedent in UK law for a referendum requiring a supermajority, is there?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Common practice in British Baptist churches:
Simple matters - majority vote in Church Meetings (minister often has a casting vote).
"Special" matters, notified as such to members in advance (eg calling a new minister, major building project) - 2/3 majority.
Of course, in a meeting which aims to "discern the mind of Christ", consensus is much better than either.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cottontail
Shipmate
# 12234
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The recent referendum in Scotland - a potential constitutional change of similar magnitude - required only a simple majority of those voting. The 1975 referendum in support of joining the EEC required only a simple majority. The 2011 Alternative vote referendum required only a simple majority of those voting. All the referenda on devolution for Wales required only a simple majority.
I don't think there's any kind of precedent in UK law for a referendum requiring a supermajority, is there?
FYI
quote:
The Scottish referendum of 1979 was a post-legislative referendum to decide whether there was sufficient support for a Scottish Assembly proposed in the Scotland Act 1978 among the Scottish electorate. This was an act to create a devolved deliberative assembly for Scotland. An amendment to the Act stipulated that it would be repealed if fewer than 40% of the total electorate voted Yes in the referendum. The result was that 51.6% supported the proposal, but with a turnout of 64%, this represented only 32.9% of the registered electorate. The Act was subsequently repealed.
Wikipedia, of course.
--------------------
"I don't think you ought to read so much theology," said Lord Peter. "It has a brutalizing influence."
Posts: 2377 | From: Scotland | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
You seem under this weird apprehension that a win isn't "clear" because numbers are close, whereas most people who weren't trying to comfort themselves over a loss would understand that a win isn't "clear' when the numbers are indeterminate.
What a shame you weren't around solving all of Ulster's problems when the 'losing' minority of Roman Catholics were being 'oppresssed' by the 'winning' majority of Protestants; thus obviating any struggle for civil rights, and over thirty years of terrorism. All that was needed, apparently, was your little genius voice piping up, 'Hard shit, guys, they outnumber you! Suck it up!'
...you think that national membership of the EU is a civil rights issue or comparable to a civil rights issue? Interesting.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...you think that national membership of the EU is a civil rights issue or comparable to a civil rights issue? Interesting.
You think the Irish Troubles were about civil rights? Interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
the score is the ultimate result of a football match, but if instead of asking "who won?" you ask "which was the better team?" then the answer may not be reflected in the score, especially when very close.
I once heard a French commentator on the radio, in the wake of some crucial international or other which France had just lost, say "France was by far the better team, it's just that the other side happened to score more goals".
Of course you never hear this kind of thing when France scores more goals.
I'm puzzled as to how you would envisage rolling back the referendum result. From outside the UK, there doesn't seem to be any question that Brexit is a done deal. The mechanism of the EU grinds on on the assumption the UK has left. "Annul vote, UK LOL" to quote the Venn diagram above, doesn't look like a very credible option.
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm puzzled as to how you would envisage rolling back the referendum result. From outside the UK, there doesn't seem to be any question that Brexit is a done deal. The mechanism of the EU grinds on on the assumption the UK has left.
At the moment the ball is with the High Court, where several legal challenges to the referendum result are due to be heard in October. These challenges mainly seem to be based on a) whether the UK Parliament also needs to pass a Bill to invoke Article 50, and b) by people who were excluded from voting in the referendum. Presumably there are also grounds for legal challenges to some of the claims made by Brexit which were clearly false, and continued to be used after this was repeatedly pointed out, or could be classed as hate speech.
In the meantime, the UK government is continuing to handle Brexit in the time-honoured fashion of putting it out to committees so that everything progresses at a snails pace. If that continues then the next means of rolling back would be a General Election returning a majority of anti-Brexit MPs.
It is, of course, one of the problems that Brexit has caused. The UK doesn't have a tradition of referenda, there's no written constitution to define what legal weight they have, and so we're still working through the ramifications of the vote because we don't actually know what it means. Previously, the few referenda we've had have followed extensive Parliamentary debate and a vote, the drawing up of a definitive statement of what Parliament proposes and then putting that to the people as a referendum at the end of the process. This time, we've turned things around and had the referendum without the Parliamentary debate and vote, on an issue that was not defined, and most certainly not defined by the government who would have to enact it. And, hence we're in a right mess.
To the rest of the world, where referenda are more common and it's understood what status they carry as a means of determining the will of the people, this probably does look very strange. May has said she won't invoke Article 50 until next year, though I can imagine her government failing to reach an agreement on what Brexit means and that date slipping back. The UK continues to exist in the current Limbo for another 6 months plus, all the while the government hopes for something that can enable them to back out of doing something they don't want to do - a successful legal challenge would be one such thing, I can also see a "blame the Scots" position becoming stronger when faced with the option of leave the EU and break the UK, or maintain the UK and stay in the EU - though whether that will be politically strong enough to overturn a politically but not legally binding referendum remains to be seen.
--------------------
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
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Euty:
quote:
You think the Irish Troubles were about civil rights? Interesting.
I guess it depends on what 'troubles' you are referring to, but even the modern 'troubles' were linked to issues regarding human and civil rights despite the fact that it became clotted and poisoned by the agenda of one specific group. You have to remember that a large part of the issue wasn't actually centred on the political front of the desire for a united Ireland and rejection of what occurred in 1948. Those in Northern Ireland who were Roman Catholic, nationalist or republican (neither of which necessarily means terrorist sympathiser unless you work for the BBC) regardless of religious affiliation and all those who didm;t fit into the nice box of a white Ulster Prod having the correct name and address, weren't able to vote, weren't able to get jobs and discovered rather quickly that there were limited places where they could live. There were shops they could;t go into, schools they could not attend, church leaders who described and decried them publicly as satanic. Having the IRA bombing campaign presenting themselves as 'fighting for their cause' did them no favours, but the fact remains - there were major human and civil rights issues that to this day the UK still has not fully acknowledged.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Thank you for that insight. I have heard it said the struggle was largely about land.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
Alan: I think that both the foot-dragging and the attempts to squirm out of the referendum result on technicalities are damaging. Fair-minded as you might be, I can't really imagine you supporting the latter course of action in particular had the result been firmly the other way.
I continue to think that delay is bad because it creates uncertainty and in the long term, political instability.
However badly the referendum may have been put together and the campaigns conducted, it seems to me that trying to invalidate the result, however maddening, would undermine perceptions of democracy still further.
And just think how "UK lol" would look to the EU-27. The UK couldn't simply pick up where it left off.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'm puzzled as to how you would envisage rolling back the referendum result. From outside the UK, there doesn't seem to be any question that Brexit is a done deal.
It's not exactly a case of rolling back anything. The referendum is a piece of internal UK politics. It's not for you.
The UK government has stated its intention to invoke article 50 (which is, of course, the thing that actually matters) but hasn't actually done so.
Would the UK lose some credibility if it turns round in six months as says "actually, we're staying"? Sure. It will be a pariah among the federalists, and will find itself relegated to holding the position of EU commissioner for the size and shape of postage stamps.
Would that be worse than Brexit (either for the EU or for the UK)? That's another argument...
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fairly neutral on the outcome of the vote. What I'm not neutral on is my growing contempt for the people, mostly leaning on the left side of politics like myself, who have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of losing a vote with good grace.
This is ridiculous. Passively accepting a result is not how any civil right was ever gained.
The democratic process should never be quiet or clean, that attitude leads to cueing for the abattoir.
I do not have hope far a clean way back, but the way forward is not set. And politely accepting the gross error will only feed the worst elements of society that led us here. This was not a vote on whether the Robin should remain the national bird. This has ramifications on the future of Britain and the E.U.
Gracefully accept? Rubbish.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Alan: I think that both the foot-dragging and the attempts to squirm out of the referendum result on technicalities are damaging. Fair-minded as you might be, I can't really imagine you supporting the latter course of action in particular had the result been firmly the other way.
If it had been firmly anyway then the amount of space to squirm over technicalities would be vanishingly small. It's precisely because it was a small margin that the technicalities are important. If knowingly making untrue statements swayed voters, then the technicality of telling porkies is important. If people were unfairly excluded from voting, then those votes should have counted (they, of course, always should have counted but if it wasn't close then they wouldn't have made a difference), if the vote is legally only advisory and a vote in the Commons is also needed to invoke Article 50 then there needs to be that debate and vote in the Commons, and with a close result then there's no clear "the people have spoken" mandate for MPs to vote against their convictions - especially if they have constituents telling them "we voted leave, but would not have voted for the deal on the table".
quote:
p The UK couldn't simply pick up where it left off.
That is undeniably true. Personally, I don't regret the loss of the privileged position the UK enjoyed within the EU. The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better. If that means leaving and petitioning to rejoin in 5 years time, so be 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
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better.
You might have trouble selling that idea in a referendum campaign...
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The sooner we get the benefits of the Euro and Schengen the better.
You might have trouble selling that idea in a referendum campaign...
Look what won the previous referendum.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
What do you think the "benefits of the Euro" would be, Alan? Are there UK economists and/or politicians you respect who are arguing that the UK should join?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are there UK ... politicians you respect?
I've tried my best. But, nope. I can't think of any.
--------------------
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
|
|
Stetson
Shipmate
# 9597
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I remain fairly neutral on the outcome of the vote. What I'm not neutral on is my growing contempt for the people, mostly leaning on the left side of politics like myself, who have shown themselves to be utterly incapable of losing a vote with good grace.
This is ridiculous. Passively accepting a result is not how any civil right was ever gained.
The democratic process should never be quiet or clean, that attitude leads to cueing for the abattoir.
I do not have hope far a clean way back, but the way forward is not set. And politely accepting the gross error will only feed the worst elements of society that led us here. This was not a vote on whether the Robin should remain the national bird. This has ramifications on the future of Britain and the E.U.
Gracefully accept? Rubbish.
So, what's the alternative to "gracefully accepting"?
--------------------
I have the power...Lucifer is lord!
Posts: 6574 | From: back and forth between bible belts | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
Are there UK ... politicians you respect?
I've tried my best. But, nope. I can't think of any.
It's dishonest of you to suggest that's even an approximation of what I posted.
Can I assume from this evasion that you're unable to describe any benefits of joining the Euro?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
