Brexit is off ?

dayjay posted:

 

 

 

The Will of the People strongly remains to stay within the EU. Far more peopleIt would appear that we can just make our own decision on what those who abstained think.  I have decided that they are in fact all in favour of us all becoming Welsh, after all far fewer people voted for us to remain in the EU therefore all those who didn't must want us to be Welsh.  Of course the fact that they didn't care enough to be bothered to vote may undermine this theory and the logic makes not sense but never mind I really want us all to be Welsh so it will do.

You’re correct, we don’t know what the people who didn’t vote are in favour of. BUT, we are now in a situation where we don’t know what the people who voted leave are in favour of, with regard to our future relationship with the EU

Although, the quit campaigners/organisers somehow seem to know they all wanted a so called hard brexit.

In considering what might be the significance of the people who did not vote, it is relevant that the referendum was effectively a vote to change, and for a vote to change it is not unreasonable to expect a majority of PEOPLE, rather than a majority of voters, to declare that as their preference.

Although  the ballot paper had the two options, that was not necessarily clear to everyone unless they turned up at the polling station and people not wanting to leave may quite reasonably have felt that there was no imperative to go along and say that, whereas everyone who wanted to leave would have wanted to go and make sure they were counted.

That doesn't mean that all who didn't viote wanted to stay, rather they would be a mixture of want to stays and don't care/mind - making conclusions based on the actual number who voted unsafe. That is why in many referenda the proportion to carry the change is much higher (different of course if voting is compulsory).

It wasn't a vote to change, and it is not reasonable to make that assumption. It was a straight in or out vote and was widely discussed as a straight in or out vote in advance.  Desperately trying to ignore the result and clutching at straws by ignoring the numbers and making assumptions that those who couldn't be bothered to vote agree with a lost cause doesn't change that.  Quite frankly it's boring pointless repetitive argument that serves no purpose.  There was a referendum, the result was leave, those who wanted to remain, and could be bothered getting off their backsides to vote, lost, time to move on.    Those who want to resist the stated will of the people can do so in new battlegrounds, in the courts or in the House of Lords but the referendum has been and gone, the result was the result and it can't be changed.

Innocent Bystander posted:

In considering what might be the significance of the people who did not vote, it is relevant that the referendum was effectively a vote to change, and for a vote to change it is not unreasonable to expect a majority of PEOPLE, rather than a majority of voters, to declare that as their preference.

And yet, the majority of the PEOPLE had ample opportunity to declare their preference, yet so many chose not to do so..........................

Although  the ballot paper had the two options, that was not necessarily clear to everyone unless they turned up at the polling station

Really, in spite of the pre-referendum leaflets delivered to each household.

and people not wanting to leave may quite reasonably have felt that there was no imperative to go along and say that,

Or..........it'll be alright on the night, no need for me to do anything?

whereas everyone who wanted to leave would have wanted to go and make sure they were counted.

That doesn't mean that all who didn't viote wanted to stay, rather they would be a mixture of want to stays and don't care/mind - making conclusions based on the actual number who voted unsafe.

You might just as well postulate that many of the no shows were in favour of Brexit, as they just didn't think the vote had any chance of ending as it did.

That is why in many referenda the proportion to carry the change is much higher (different of course if voting is compulsory).

Southweststokie posted:

naim_nymph posted:

 The Will of the People strongly remains to stay within the EU. Far more people of the UK did not vote to Leave.

I wonder if the result had finished 52% remain, 48% leave and the rest abstained would there still be all these demands for a repeat vote. After all if 52% it's not a sufficient majority to leave then it would not be a sufficient majority to remain either would it!

Talking in the abstract (about referendums in other countries where they are used regularly) there is usually a requirement for a certain majority required to change the status quo as well as all states / areas of the country being in agreement.  There is also typically set down what will happen if the referendum is passed  

So taking the typical rules of referendums, the status quo would be remaining in the EU, so there should have been a requirement for a (say) 60% majority as well as England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland having to be in agreement.

I'm not saying this as an argument to overturn the referendum result, just to point out what a ****ing shambles the whole referendum was!  We should have been voting between remaining a member of the EU (the status quo) and a set down position of what would be the result of voting leave (e.g. if "Hard Brexit" to withdraw from the EU including the Customs Union and financial services agreements). 

One thing I do think is that it's the uncertainty which is most damaging to the country.  We are leaving the EU, government needs to set out what that means.  Not rhetoric and platitudes, but real plans. 

Innocent Bystander posted:

In considering what might be the significance of the people who did not vote, it is relevant that the referendum was effectively a vote to change, and for a vote to change it is not unreasonable to expect a majority of PEOPLE, rather than a majority of voters, to declare that as their preference.

Although  the ballot paper had the two options, that was not necessarily clear to everyone unless they turned up at the polling station and people not wanting to leave may quite reasonably have felt that there was no imperative to go along and say that, whereas everyone who wanted to leave would have wanted to go and make sure they were counted.

That doesn't mean that all who didn't viote wanted to stay, rather they would be a mixture of want to stays and don't care/mind - making conclusions based on the actual number who voted unsafe. That is why in many referenda the proportion to carry the change is much higher (different of course if voting is compulsory).

At first I just thought you were making random statements through intoxicants, but did stick with it and do get your logic.

However, whichever way you cut it (Freudian slip), and no matter how unreasonable you feel the approach taken was, didn't the deep thinkers in Parliament take all of this into account when they voted 6/1 to have a Referendum based on a simple majority? I also think that your belief that the electorate is incapable of deciphering two simple options, Leave or Remain, is a trifle demeaning. 

Other than that am not sure where you were going with your comment. Somehow I don't think it was in the direction of the door marked Brexit, or at least not very willingly. 

fatcat posted:

dayjay posted:

 

 

 

The Will of the People strongly remains to stay within the EU. Far more peopleIt would appear that we can just make our own decision on what those who abstained think.  I have decided that they are in fact all in favour of us all becoming Welsh, after all far fewer people voted for us to remain in the EU therefore all those who didn't must want us to be Welsh.  Of course the fact that they didn't care enough to be bothered to vote may undermine this theory and the logic makes not sense but never mind I really want us all to be Welsh so it will do.

You’re correct, we don’t know what the people who didn’t vote are in favour of. BUT, we are now in a situation where we don’t know what the people who voted leave are in favour of, with regard to our future relationship with the EU

Although, the quit campaigners/organisers somehow seem to know they all wanted a so called hard brexit.

Fair enough, and again we can surely only go by the wording on the referendum paper.  I wouldn't dispute that there is much to be agreed but pointlessly stating that the result wasn't the result serves no purpose.  The people have responded to the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" and they have the right to see their decision complied with.  What that means in practise needs to be defined but it must surely mean that we leave the European Union.

Not sure in what way it can be considered not to have been a vote for change: Britain was in, so the only option was to leave...

BTW, I am not suggesting that the vote can be modified or counted in any other way now, though as I observed in an earlier post there is no reason why a confirmative referendum could not be held if the Government had the will to do so, which would be reasonable for all the reasons I gave in that post (two days and two hours ago).

dayjay posted:

Those who want to resist the stated will of the people can do so in new battlegrounds, in the courts or in the House of Lords but the referendum has been and gone, the result was the result and it can't be changed.

I think it's unfair to say that those who are appealing to the courts are trying to resist the stated will of the people.  MPs should have a debate and a say in the direction of negotiations. Article 50 should be triggered, but beyond that it's open to debate what "the will of the people" is.  

Some of "the people" want all the immigrants to go home.  Some of the people want £350million to the NHS.  Some of the people want UK sovereignty to be restored.  Some want "control" of our borders.  Some want the burocracy of EU and EU regulations removed.  Some want to fish without EU interference in UK waters.

Most want a combination of those factors.  So we are leaving the EU - parliament abdicated that decision to "the people" for whatever the reason, but what shape the future looks like is still open to debate.

dayjay posted:

fatcat posted:

dayjay posted:

 

 

 

  The people have responded to the question "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union" and they have the right to see their decision complied with.  What that means in practise needs to be defined but it must surely mean that we leave the European Union.

They also have the right to expect people, by now, to gently put their toys back into the pram, and accept that decision, surely?

Or is that asking too much?  

Innocent Bystander posted:

Not sure in what way it can be considered not to have been a vote for change: Britain was in, so the only option was to leave...

BTW, I am not suggesting that the vote can be modified or counted in any other way now, though as I observed in an earlier post there is no reason why a confirmative referendum could not be held if the Government had the will to do so, which would be reasonable for all the reasons I gave in that post (two days and two hours ago).

There were two options, to leave or remain.  You could just as easily argue that it was a vote to confirm our status as a member, and I'm damned sure that those who set us on this path expected it to be just that.  Sadly they misjudged how many people felt on that issue but if they had been correct it would have been a vote to confirm that we remain in the EU.   We are stuck with the result whatever we think and it's time to move on and for someone in power to show some leadership on where we go next.

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

Those who want to resist the stated will of the people can do so in new battlegrounds, in the courts or in the House of Lords but the referendum has been and gone, the result was the result and it can't be changed.

I think it's unfair to say that those who are appealing to the courts are trying to resist the stated will of the people.  MPs should have a debate and a say in the direction of negotiations. Article 50 should be triggered, but beyond that it's open to debate what "the will of the people" is.  

Some of "the people" want all the immigrants to go home.  Some of the people want £350million to the NHS.  Some of the people want UK sovereignty to be restored.  Some want "control" of our borders.  Some want the burocracy of EU and EU regulations removed.  Some want to fish without EU interference in UK waters.

Most want a combination of those factors.  So we are leaving the EU - parliament abdicated that decision to "the people" for whatever the reason, but what shape the future looks like is still open to debate.

You're not wrong Eloise, and my statement was ill judged. What I should have said is that the debate should move on from the result of the referendum to other areas

I presume at this very moment, hundreds of economist, mathematicians and other learned people employed by the government will be busy calculating the financial hit or gain of taking this option, that option or another option. If it turns out the choice is between disastrous, very disastrous or completely disastrous, the government will have to declare the result of the referendum can not be implemented.

The quitters may not like it, but, it will be for their own good. Rather like preventing a person with suicidal thoughts from jumping off a tower block.

dayjay posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Not sure in what way it can be considered not to have been a vote for change: Britain was in, so the only option was to leave...

BTW, I am not suggesting that the vote can be modified or counted in any other way now, though as I observed in an earlier post there is no reason why a confirmative referendum could not be held if the Government had the will to do so, which would be reasonable for all the reasons I gave in that post (two days and two hours ago).

There were two options, to leave or remain.  You could just as easily argue that it was a vote to confirm our status as a member, and I'm damned sure that those who set us on this path expected it to be just that.  Sadly they misjudged how many people felt on that issue but if they had been correct it would have been a vote to confirm that we remain in the EU.   We are stuck with the result whatever we think and it's time to move on and for someone in power to show some leadership on where we go next.

That just shows the failing in the idiots who set the whole referendum up.  They should have asked countries like Switzerland and Australia who routinely use referendum to settle and decide constitutional question how they should be held.

A referendum should always have a status quo position defined and the question is "do you wish to change from the status quo?"  

But the referendum wasn't about giving the people a say, it was about quieting the Tory Euro-skeptics and UKIP.

fatcat posted:

Rather like preventing a person with suicidal thoughts from jumping off a tower block.

Can we wait till AFTER David Davis, Boris Johnson and Liam Fox (and if Michael Gove could be persuaded up there too so much the better!) have jumped...

Oh sorry I always have trouble with metaphors!

I suspect any party making that decision would be committing electoral suicide, not to mention that the Tory party would pull itself apart in the wake of such a decision. They will try to find some form of middle ground that appears to comply with the essence of the result whilst protecting their own interests.  I note we have drifted back into the slightly derisive terminology of remoaners and quitters again.  If we can't have a sensible debate on a hifi forum without rancour and minor insults, and without making huge assumptions what chance have they got in parliament.  Pandora's box has been opened and we will all have to live with it one way or another.  Let's trust that there is a little hope at the bottom of it.

Why do I have this mental picture of Remoaners sitting in front of their very expensive record decks (this is a Naim music forum after all) desperately willing the needle to get out of the horrible crack that has ruined their favourite record? 

My other undying certainty is that should the tables have been turned the Brexiteers would never have got the indulgent oxygen of publicity after the event that the Remoaners currently have from the Establishment. It would have been suck it up and shut up and the great unwashed sheeple would have done so. But am afraid that for that one moment in time they could be you, the Establishment, and the rest is going to be history. (Sorry Bob but you'll still get the Nobel prize).

dave marshall posted:

They also have the right to expect people, by now, to gently put their toys back into the pram, and accept that decision, surely?

Or is that asking too much?  

Sorry but yes, it's too much to ask that people who genuinely feel that the UK has taken a mistep just bury their head in the sand.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that our elected representatives just sit back and watch as an unelected (except by her own MPs) prime minister sets a direction for this country which could last for 40+ years.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that we just accept without question the views of the non-Doms and forigeners who control the propaganda machines of the press.

dayjay posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

Not sure in what way it can be considered not to have been a vote for change: Britain was in, so the only option was to leave...

BTW, I am not suggesting that the vote can be modified or counted in any other way now, though as I observed in an earlier post there is no reason why a confirmative referendum could not be held if the Government had the will to do so, which would be reasonable for all the reasons I gave in that post (two days and two hours ago).

There were two options, to leave or remain.  You could just as easily argue that it was a vote to confirm our status as a member, and I'm damned sure that those who set us on this path expected it to be just that.  Sadly they misjudged how many people felt on that issue but if they had been correct it would have been a vote to confirm that we remain in the EU.   We are stuck with the result whatever we think and it's time to move on and for someone in power to show some leadership on where we go next.

Except that a vote to confirm status doesn't mean leave if not confirmed, unles that is hammered home to everyone. I suspect that many people were so pee'd off with the whole thing and couldn't make sense of the myriad of speculative and often clearly ludicrous claims and counter-claims making the headlines every day, making them not bother to get involved. Of course I have no proof of that, other than that my two twenty-something children said 'oh notbthis again' every time it came on the news, promply turning to their own screens or walking out of the room, regardless of me advising that it was important to all our futures. The older one observed that it was all lies. Neither of them voted. Both think leaving is worse than remaining. 

If the UK Gov't in its infinite wisdom is determined to go ahead and leave the EU without a confirmatory referendum that is entirely within their rights, but as others have observed a referendum result with a majority saying leave is not a mandate for dash out as quick as you can at any cost, and it is perfectly reasonable, even compelling, for all politicans to take part in deciding the way forward.

dayjay posted:

I suspect any party making that decision would be committing electoral suicide, not to mention that the Tory party would pull itself apart in the wake of such a decision. They will try to find some form of middle ground that appears to comply with the essence of the result whilst protecting their own interests. 

I suspect we will find ourselves in a "Norway" type deal.  Remaining a member of the customs union (to satisfy the car manufactures); negotiating to keep financial services arrangements (to satisfy the bankers) and following the majority of EU regulation as a result.  In return we will continue paying to the EU while loosing influence in setting the rules, and accepting most of the same free movement (probably restricting some benefits). 

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

I suspect any party making that decision would be committing electoral suicide, not to mention that the Tory party would pull itself apart in the wake of such a decision. They will try to find some form of middle ground that appears to comply with the essence of the result whilst protecting their own interests. 

I suspect we will find ourselves in a "Norway" type deal.  Remaining a member of the customs union (to satisfy the car manufactures); negotiating to keep financial services arrangements (to satisfy the bankers) and following the majority of EU regulation as a result.  In return we will continue paying to the EU while loosing influence in setting the rules, and accepting most of the same free movement (probably restricting some benefits). 

While also setting up deals from other countries that commit UK to accepting more immigrants from non-EU countries...

Innocent Bystander posted:

Eloise posted:

dayjay posted:

I suspect any party making that decision would be committing electoral suicide, not to mention that the Tory party would pull itself apart in the wake of such a decision. They will try to find some form of middle ground that appears to comply with the essence of the result whilst protecting their own interests. 

I suspect we will find ourselves in a "Norway" type deal.  Remaining a member of the customs union (to satisfy the car manufactures); negotiating to keep financial services arrangements (to satisfy the bankers) and following the majority of EU regulation as a result.  In return we will continue paying to the EU while loosing influence in setting the rules, and accepting most of the same free movement (probably restricting some benefits). 

While also setting up deals from other countries that commit UK to accepting more immigrants from non-EU countries...

I forgot that bit ... 

Well I am sure it will all become clear in time and it will be interesting to watch it unfold but for now I am off to bed.  And if I wake up tomorrow to Mr Trump being the leader of the world's most powerful country I sincerely hope one tries to argue that he shouldn't be because some people didn't bother to vote, because that would be truly scary.  Good night all.

dayjay posted:

Well I am sure it will all become clear in time and it will be interesting to watch it unfold but for now I am off to bed.  And if I wake up tomorrow to Mr Trump being the leader of the world's most powerful country I sincerely hope one tries to argue that he shouldn't be because some people didn't bother to vote, because that would be truly scary.  Good night all.

I'm sure if he doesn't win HE will be arguing he should be some people didn't bother to vote and the Mexican immigrants shouldn't get a vote anyway!

dayjay posted:

Well I am sure it will all become clear in time and it will be interesting to watch it unfold but for now I am off to bed.  And if I wake up tomorrow to Mr Trump being the leader of the world's most powerful country I sincerely hope one tries to argue that he shouldn't be because some people didn't bother to vote, because that would be truly scary.  Good night all.

Nighty nighty - sweet dreams of something Trumped up...!