Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
vrdiver
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1402
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 2:22 am
Has thanked: 207 times
Been thanked: 409 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124531

Postby vrdiver » March 13th, 2018, 12:41 pm

1nv35t wrote:There is no EU law as to whether A50 can be revoked. That would require ECJ consideration. The prospects of common agreement is remote. What then if there is no deal or a deal at the 11th hour (too late to hold a referendum campaign/vote) and/or the ECJ haven't ruled as to whether revoking A50 is permissible and if stated as being permissible on what terms/conditions (the EP/EC would also probably want to input on that front - negotiate/state on what terms). As such I can't see a referendum being offered anyway, and even it were its only advisory. Such a referendum would also most likely involve another General Election - with Labour forming the government. Worst possible outcome of in the EU under worse terms than before and a weakly opposed Marxist government. Good grief, that would dwarf even the most extreme negative Brexit predictions made by Remainers.

Nice straw man, but just supposition. If we're allowing supposition, then you could equally imagine an agreed extention to the two year period whilst the ECJ rule on revoking A50 and everybody who needs to gets time to vote. If A50 were to be withdrawn then it has already been stated by Donald Trump and quite a few others that the UK would be welcome back, so I'd be surprised if they felt the need to pass another treaty to alter the UK's status!
Whether Corbyn and Labour will win the next election is a red herring, but if they do, then I'd rather be inside the EU with the ECJ's oversite reigning in their powers than outwith, suffering an unfettered Momentum agenda!

paullidd
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 102
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124532

Postby paullidd » March 13th, 2018, 12:42 pm

1nv35t wrote:To reiterate. We had a bad deal. Paying the EU to access its market, allowing free access to ours. Cameron asked for a better arrangement and was refused, so we opted to leave. In leaving the EU has said you can't leave and have a better deal than the prior bad deal you already had. In leaving however we can revise trade in a manner that makes the EU's prior good deal as equally as bad. Once so the tendency may be towards removing some of the bad elements in equal measures.



This is plainly just untrue - here is a link to the EU 28 countries contributions to the EU Budget for 2016 - so who had free access to the uk market?

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124533

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 12:45 pm

BobbyD wrote:just ask the supreme court or anybody with a basic understanding of the law, or try reading the referendum act yourself to dig out the clauses which enshrine the result as legally meaningful.

I never said otherwise. What I said is that having a vote is pointless if you think the result should be ignored if it goes one way but adhered to if it goes the other way.

BobbyD wrote:As I said elsewhere, I hadn't previously attributed racism a significant role in the Leave victory

You were right the first time. Racism did not swing the result nor would it matter if it had. Everyone gets one vote regardless of their politics. You cannot discount votes just because those voters have some other opinion that you don't like.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124538

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Lootman wrote:
BobbyD wrote:just ask the supreme court or anybody with a basic understanding of the law, or try reading the referendum act yourself to dig out the clauses which enshrine the result as legally meaningful.

I never said otherwise. What I said is that having a vote is pointless if you think the result should be ignored if it goes one way but adhered to if it goes the other way.


An advisory referendum allows the Government to gauge the opinion of the country and use that as one of its considerations into whether it should move forward with the matter being proposed. In this case, although the vote was for leaving, the result was so close that it should have had a fairly minimal weighting in those considerations and certainly did not warrant the adoption of a hard brexit position as being "the will of the people".

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124539

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 1:04 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:An advisory referendum allows the Government to gauge the opinion of the country and use that as one of its considerations into whether it should move forward with the matter being proposed. In this case, although the vote was for leaving, the result was so close that it should have had a fairly minimal weighting in those considerations and certainly did not warrant the adoption of a hard brexit position as being "the will of the people".

I do not believe that anyone who voted that day did so in the belief that the result should have a "minimal weighting". They voted believing that they were making a decision. To discount the vote if it goes one way but not the other is to utterly dismiss the will of the people.

Nor does the fact that it was close matter either. Elections are often close but there is still always a winner. If a decisive result had been required then the referendum should have required. say, a 55% or 60% vote. It didn't, it was winner-rakes-all and everyone voting understood that at the time.

Nor was that it even that close. Over 8% more people voted to leave than to remain.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124541

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 1:19 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:An advisory referendum allows the Government to gauge the opinion of the country and use that as one of its considerations into whether it should move forward with the matter being proposed. In this case, although the vote was for leaving, the result was so close that it should have had a fairly minimal weighting in those considerations and certainly did not warrant the adoption of a hard brexit position as being "the will of the people".

I do not believe that anyone who voted that day did so in the belief that the result should have a "minimal weighting". They voted believing that they were making a decision. To discount the vote if it goes one way but not the other is to utterly dismiss the will of the people.

Nor does the fact that it was close matter either. Elections are often close but there is still always a winner. If a decisive result had been required then the referendum should have required. say, a 55% or 60% vote. It didn't, it was winner-rakes-all and everyone voting understood that at the time.

Nor was that it even that close. Over 8% more people voted to leave than to remain.


A swing of 2% would have resulted in a tie - the result was 48-52 of those who voted. I've no idea where you get 8% from.

Unlike this advisory referendum general elections are mandatory in that a new house of commons is being elected (there is no constitutional provision for the members of the old house of commons to consider staying on instead of allowing the new members to take their places.)

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124546

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 1:28 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:A swing of 2% would have resulted in a tie - the result was 48-52 of those who voted. I've no idea where you get 8% from.

Simple. 52 is 8.33% higher than 48. It is 1/12 expressed in percentage form.

The swing required for a tie is half of that.

ursaminortaur wrote:Unlike this advisory referendum general elections are mandatory in that a new house of commons is being elected (there is no constitutional provision for the members of the old house of commons to consider staying on instead of allowing the new members to take their places.)

And again, if Remain had won you would never mention that the election was "advisory" only. You would instead claim that the matter had been settled.

In practice you cannot hold an election, wait to see the result, and then ignore the result of it if you don't like it. Both May and Corbyn campaigned to Remain and yet are taking the Leave mandate as binding on them. What you are really saying is that the vote should be ignored because you personally don't like the result.

paullidd
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 102
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 12:31 pm
Has thanked: 26 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124554

Postby paullidd » March 13th, 2018, 2:06 pm

1nv35t wrote:
paullidd wrote:
1nv35t wrote:To reiterate. We had a bad deal. Paying the EU to access its market, allowing free access to ours. Cameron asked for a better arrangement and was refused, so we opted to leave. In leaving the EU has said you can't leave and have a better deal than the prior bad deal you already had. In leaving however we can revise trade in a manner that makes the EU's prior good deal as equally as bad. Once so the tendency may be towards removing some of the bad elements in equal measures.

This is plainly just untrue - here is a link to the EU 28 countries contributions to the EU Budget for 2016 - so who had free access to the uk market?

Dumb economics to just count the membership fee (20Bn for the UK). Important is the 120Bn/year more of their stuff we buy than they ours. Fundamentally that has to be found from somewhere i.e. added to the UK's debt mountain along with loss of assets into foreign hands.

All the Remain talk about trade-is-good, is ignorant of even basic economic understanding.

Germany were bailed out by the ECB to amounts vastly in excess of their contributions, and have as such benefited - net liability rather than a net contributor.



I'm sorry but I dont get what you are comparing here.

You said we pay to access EU market and they have free access to UK market, this is clearly not true.

The ECB may have bailed out german banks - so what?

We bailed out our banks and we are all still paying for it ten years later.

Post Brexit we will still import a lot from the EU with added tariffs, so how will that be any better?

Re- German banks and ECB bailout can you cite some evidence, whilst you're moving the goalposts.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124558

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 2:29 pm

1nv35t wrote:
Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:A swing of 2% would have resulted in a tie - the result was 48-52 of those who voted. I've no idea where you get 8% from.

Simple. 52 is 8.33% higher than 48. It is 1/12 expressed in percentage form.

Measured in similar terms to a GE, regional and the Brexit majority was highly significant. Ultimately career MP's know that will come around again and is a reason why Labour will win a massive majority in the HoC in the event of Brexit not being delivered (including any in all but name twisted wriggle outs).


That is a stupid percentage measure. If the result had been 100 to 0 that would have been an infinite percentage difference according to that methodology. The normal percentage measure used for election differences is the difference with respect to the total number voting not with respect to the number who voted for the losing side and the swing is half that ie in this case 2%. Hence this was a close result with those voting being split pretty much down the middle.

A reasonable alternative might be the difference as a percentage of all those eligible to vote which would give
(37 - 34) / 100 = 3%

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124559

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 3:05 pm

ursaminortaur wrote: The normal percentage measure used for election differences is the difference with respect to the total number voting not with respect to the number who voted for the losing side and the swing is half that ie in this case 2%. Hence this was a close result with those voting being split pretty much down the middle.

There is more than one way of expressing the result. Naturally you choose the one that makes the result look closer. My submission is that the result wasn't that close - 8.33% more people voted Leave than Remain.

Close would have been 50.1 to 49.9 or any result that would reasonably require a recount.

Suppose Remain had won 52/48 and then suppose May and Corbyn both said the result was only "advisory" and that we are leaving anyway. Sounds like that would be fine with you, given that you want us to remain despite a 52/48 majority wanting to leave.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124573

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 4:10 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote: The normal percentage measure used for election differences is the difference with respect to the total number voting not with respect to the number who voted for the losing side and the swing is half that ie in this case 2%. Hence this was a close result with those voting being split pretty much down the middle.

There is more than one way of expressing the result. Naturally you choose the one that makes the result look closer. My submission is that the result wasn't that close - 8.33% more people voted Leave than Remain.

Close would have been 50.1 to 49.9 or any result that would reasonably require a recount.


I've chosen the methodology which is generally used. You have picked a measure which isn't usually used and which suits your position by inflating the percentage difference and which in extreme situations ie 100 to 0 produces an infinite result.

Lootman wrote:Suppose Remain had won 52/48 and then suppose May and Corbyn both said the result was only "advisory" and that we are leaving anyway. Sounds like that would be fine with you, given that you want us to remain despite a 52/48 majority wanting to leave.


I wouldn't have liked it* but if that was the decision of Parliament then since this is a representative democracy and the position despite the referendum result being in favour of staying, had been agreed by a vote in Parliament then I'd accept it.
As I said an advisory referendum should only be one input into the decision which should be taken by Parliament not something which overrides reasoned debate in Parliament because it is "the will of the people".**

* I wouldn't have liked it unless Parliament then presented a very good case - which at the moment I cannot see - why leaving was preferable.


** The situation currently unfortunately is that reasoned debate in Parliament appears to be being overridden by this bogus "will of the people" resulting from an advisory referendum with only a fairly marginal win for the leave side. Which has led May into going for a hard brexit which wasn't what all of those who voted leave expected (as evidence of that we have the opinions of a couple of leave voting posters on this board plus bloggers such as Peter North and his colleagues who promoted the Flexcit option for brexit.)

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124579

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 4:30 pm

ursaminortaur wrote: this is a representative democracy and the position despite the referendum result being in favour of staying, had been agreed by a vote in Parliament then I'd accept it.

As I said an advisory referendum should only be one input into the decision which should be taken by Parliament not something which overrides reasoned debate in Parliament because it is "the will of the people".**

If we have a referendum then the working assumption is that the result is binding on politicians. Otherwise it is just a glorified public opinion poll.

It would be an outrage if the Leave result were simply ignored because a majority of MPs decide they don't like the outcome. That is why both May and Corbyn changed their position to support leaving. I don't like either of them but they showed there a profound respect for the will of the people (something you appear to dismiss simply because you personally disagree with it). You are really arguing that the voters are stupid and therefore should be ignored, and that is dangerous talk in a democracy.

More generally I would prefer it if MPs listen to the people more rather than seek to impose their own views on the rest of us. They should talk less and listen more.

To the other point I was simply expressing the result in terms that show it was not "close" in any of senses of that word that apply to elections. 13 to 12 is a clear margin of victory. More significant is that Leave won despite both all parties except UKIP campaigning to Remain. Imagine the result if the Tories, Labour, LibDems and the SNP had all campaigned to Leave? It would have been a landslide.

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2271
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124592

Postby BobbyD » March 13th, 2018, 5:29 pm

Lootman wrote:[
If we have a referendum then the working assumption is that the result is binding on politicians. Otherwise it is just a glorified public opinion poll. .


Not glorified, just an opinion poll as anybody with a basic knowledge of the law, or the slightest interest in the consequences of the referendum would have known.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124594

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 5:30 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote: this is a representative democracy and the position despite the referendum result being in favour of staying, had been agreed by a vote in Parliament then I'd accept it.

As I said an advisory referendum should only be one input into the decision which should be taken by Parliament not something which overrides reasoned debate in Parliament because it is "the will of the people".**

If we have a referendum then the working assumption is that the result is binding on politicians. Otherwise it is just a glorified public opinion poll.


No, all UK wide referendums in the UK apart from the Alternative Vote referendum in 2011 were advisory only. Hence the result of the referendum was just one factor to be taken into consideration by Parliament. If the result like the 1975 referendum had been 67 to 33 one way or the other or anything close to that then I would have expected Parliament to have given that advice a great deal of weight. Since the result was much closer 52 to 48 less weight should be accorded to that advice and Parliament should be looking at other factors.

Btw using your methodology for the difference percentage the 1975 result difference was (67 -33) /33 = 103%

BobbyD
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2271
Joined: January 22nd, 2017, 2:29 pm
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 99 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124596

Postby BobbyD » March 13th, 2018, 5:46 pm

Lootman wrote:Nor was that it even that close. Over 8% more people voted to leave than to remain.


This is simply not true. Your off by more than 8%....

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124599

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 5:59 pm

BobbyD wrote:
Lootman wrote:If we have a referendum then the working assumption is that the result is binding on politicians. Otherwise it is just a glorified public opinion poll. .

Not glorified, just an opinion poll as anybody with a basic knowledge of the law, or the slightest interest in the consequences of the referendum would have known.

If you think a referendum is nothing more than another kind of opinion poll then I really don't know what to say to you. Clearly the leaders of the two main parties disagree with you, even if they agree on little else. Frankly your opinion is an insult to the voters and anyone who took their voting decision seriously.
BobbyD wrote:
Lootman wrote:Nor was that it even that close. Over 8% more people voted to leave than to remain.

This is simply not true. Your off by more than 8%....

It's true. Read carefully what I said. I said that 8.33% more people voted for Leave than voted for Remain. That is 100% true - it is simply 52/48 expressed as a percentage. How you get that to be an overstatement by 8% is quite beyond me.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124600

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 6:04 pm

ursaminortaur wrote: the result of the referendum was just one factor to be taken into consideration by Parliament . . Since the result was much closer 52 to 48 less weight should be accorded to that advice and Parliament should be looking at other factors.

I think you are describing how you would like things to be, and not how they are. You will surely have noticed that Parliament is acting upon the referendum result as if it were binding, which in political terms it is.

In a binary referendum the winner needs 50% plus one vote. You seem to be assuming that it needed something like 60% to win. Not true. Likewise winning a cricket game by one run has the same effect as winning it by an innings and 100 runs.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124602

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 6:14 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote: the result of the referendum was just one factor to be taken into consideration by Parliament . . Since the result was much closer 52 to 48 less weight should be accorded to that advice and Parliament should be looking at other factors.

I think you are describing how you would like things to be, and not how they are. You will surely have noticed that Parliament is acting upon the referendum result as if it were binding, which in political terms it is.

In a binary referendum the winner needs 50% plus one vote. You seem to be assuming that it needed something like 60% to win. Not true. Likewise winning a cricket game by one run has the same effect as winning it by an innings and 100 runs.


I'm saying what should have happened since this was an advisory referendum. The fact that May and Corbyn allowed this to be hijacked by this "will of the people" rubbish is a scandal as it undermines representative democracy. The score in a cricket game is not advisory.

Lootman
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3928
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 8 times
Been thanked: 607 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124604

Postby Lootman » March 13th, 2018, 6:24 pm

ursaminortaur wrote:I'm saying what should have happened since this was an advisory referendum. The fact that May and Corbyn allowed this to be hijacked by this "will of the people" rubbish is a scandal as it undermines representative democracy. The score in a cricket game is not advisory.

And again, you are playing the "advisory card" only because you don't like the election result. You would have been howling with outrage if Remain had won 52/48 and the government then decided to leave anyway because it was only "advisory".

The fact that you think that the will of the people is "rubbish" really serves to show that you have nothing but contempt for democracy and the political process. You just want your way regardless and, thankfully, the nation, government and people won't let you get away with it. It was precisely that kind of smug elitism and mindless faith in experts and bureaucrats that helped cause the Remain side to lose in the first place.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 126 times
Been thanked: 86 times

Re: A new referendum may be a constitutional requirement

#124609

Postby ursaminortaur » March 13th, 2018, 6:46 pm

Lootman wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:I'm saying what should have happened since this was an advisory referendum. The fact that May and Corbyn allowed this to be hijacked by this "will of the people" rubbish is a scandal as it undermines representative democracy. The score in a cricket game is not advisory.

And again, you are playing the "advisory card" only because you don't like the election result. You would have been howling with outrage if Remain had won 52/48 and the government then decided to leave anyway because it was only "advisory".

The fact that you think that the will of the people is "rubbish" really serves to show that you have nothing but contempt for democracy and the political process. You just want your way regardless and, thankfully, the nation, government and people won't let you get away with it. It was precisely that kind of smug elitism and mindless faith in experts and bureaucrats that helped cause the Remain side to lose in the first place.


I've already said that in those circumstances I wouldn't like it but would accept it if Parliament decided after reasoned debates that was the path to take. Though I'd expect Parliament to have a good explanation as to why they considered leaving to be the best action to take. Invoking the "will of the people" to override reasoned debate and pursue some action as the result of a narrow win in an advisory referendum though is scandalous. I'm a believer in our representative democracy and believe that MPs should consider evidence before voting rather than just do whatever they believe their constituents might want. Following the latter path without due consideration of the effects just leads to cake and eat it fantasies.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ursaminortaur and 3 guests