So, 4 days on, were Remain scaremongering or not?

Sporky

Troy said:

All I read is that the Remain wants another referendum (Though do wonder what they would have said if the results were reversed), as well as name calling us Leave voters (eg cunt, rascist, uneducated, unemployed, ignorant, etc.

If that's all you read then you were very selective.

Still, nice of you to get the parting shot in that all remain voters are intolerant snobs. Again. Can you really not see the irony there?

lloyd

Troy said:

I CBA to reply any more on posts regarding the referendum. All I read is that the Remain wants another referendum (Though do wonder what they would have said if the results were reversed), as well as name calling us Leave voters (eg cunt, rascist, uneducated, unemployed, ignorant, etc.. (go read some of the posts again if you don't believe me)). I've stated one of my reasons why I voted leave (Fishing industry) and no one from the Remain has commented as they know that's a valid point.

I'm (like the UK) out.

I'll speak up about the fishing industry-the british fishermen voted with their feet-there's no appetite to do it in this country anymore.

How can something that gives everyone an equal shot at something be blamed for one group of people not doing it?

ICBM

Troy said:

I CBA to reply any more on posts regarding the referendum. All I read is that the Remain wants another referendum (Though do wonder what they would have said if the results were reversed), as well as name calling us Leave voters (eg cunt, rascist, uneducated, unemployed, ignorant, etc.. (go read some of the posts again if you don't believe me)). I've stated one of my reasons why I voted leave (Fishing industry) and no one from the Remain has commented as they know that's a valid point.

I have never said any of that.

I don't want a second referendum - I want Parliament to ignore the result of this extremely divisive and non-binding referendum, in the national interest.

I have never called any Leave voters names, nor will I.

It is certainly a valid point about the fishing industry. But for me that doesn't trump the other damage that leaving will almost certainly do to the UK. The EU is not perfect, I've never claimed it was - it needs reform, and agriculture and fisheries is one of the areas that does. I'm also sure that leaving will not fix it, since the problem of over-fishing will continue even if we can block other nations from our territorial waters.

No offence taken or intended if you don't want to discuss further.

Modulus_Amps

interestingly @ICBM if you take your "logic" Scotland only got 41% for stay, also a minority by your definition, yet they are now looking to push for independence based on that minority.....

p90fool

Troy said:

Then again, what do I know, I voted leave so means i'm uneducated, though never knew having a 2.1 degree in ICT means i'm uneducated...

I voted remain and I have a Cycling Proficiency Badge, so I think you could class us both as natural rebels against our stereotypes.

ICBM

Modulus_Amps said:

interestingly @ICBM if you take your "logic" Scotland only got 41% for stay, also a minority by your definition, yet they are now looking to push for independence based on that minority.....

I know, and I'm not sure I would be comfortable if there is a new independence referendum with a simple-majority bar even though I support independence. As with the EU I think that a proper, indisputable majority of the Scottish electorate need to vote Yes for it to be given.

It's also worth mentioning that proportionally more Scots voted for independence last time - 38% - than the 37% of the UK who voted to leave the EU…

RaymondLin

I'll tell you who is going to do well out of all this...lawyers. The number of hours they are going to charge not only in drafting new laws but the lower down the tier, lawyers who advice companies about their liabilities in post Brexit. It's been a week and our firm has already created a internal intranet page with all sorts of topics on the potential changes that the Brexit would have on our clients (big insurance companies to cosmetic brands to banks etc) as they are all worried.

Where lower down the poor will always get hits the hardest with everyday spending rises, if businesses are moving abroad then jobs will go. The divide between the rich and poor will be even greater in the short to medium (I would say at least 10 years) future.

capo4th

Yes the legal world is delighted just imagine all those letters being written at £1000 a pop

paulmapp8306

Modulus_Amps said:

ICBM said:

Troy said:

How is 52% the minority?

Does this really need explaining?

52% of a 72% turnout is 37% of the electorate. ie a minority.

or 37% majority for leave
with 34% minority for stay
with 28% minority who did not care enough to vote

it is still a majority when looked at as a whole

Wih Id thought of that....

paulmapp8306

ICBM said:

Modulus_Amps said:

or 37% majority for leave 

with 34% minority for stay
with 28% minority who did not care enough to vote

Your first line is wrong. It should be 37% minority for leave.

Modulus_Amps said:

it is still a majority when looked at as a whole

No, the exact point is that when looked at *as a whole* it is a minority - 37% to 63%.

Troy said:

I don't think you can class 37% of the electorate as a minority. Minroity would be more like 10% or less.

49.999% of the electorate is a minority.

Do you actually understand what minority and majority mean?

Sporky said:

It depends a bit on how you assess the didn't-voters.

If they saw it as "d'you want to change the current situation?" then not voting might be equivalent, to them, of "no, I don't want to change".

If they saw it as just a load of old grey men arguing a lot then it could well be "I just do not care what the outcome is".

If they saw it as something they didn't feel qualified to answer then...

If they thought it was definitely going one way or the other then it could be tacit approval of what they thought would happen anyway.

And, of course, it varies by person, just as leavers and remainers will each have had individual reasons.

Exactly - because they did not vote and you do not know how they might have, you cannot claim that a majority of the people voted for a change. (I know you aren't personally.)

True - but you cant claim the majority of the people voted NOT to change either.  To judge things your way, you are weighting the system so those that cant be bothered are assumed to not want change.  This is flawed.  You just dont know - and therefore, from a decision purpose you have to ignore the unkown.

Statistics can always be made to favour your position should you wish.

Its simple - if you wanted only a majority decision, you could have asked :

1.  "Do you want to leave the EU" and count the yes votes only.  This favours the stay in group.

2.  "Do you want to leave the EU" and only count the no votes.  This favours the leave group.

You cant do either - so the only way you can - democratically ask the question, without weighting the result in favour of either is to do what they did.  Count both, but ignore those who didnt express an opinion.  

Sporky

I think it's easy to confuse.

63% of the electorate didn't vote to leave (undeniably true)

with

63% of the electorate didn't want to leave (signficant speculation)

paulmapp8306

paulmapp8306 said:

ICBM said:

Modulus_Amps said:

or 37% majority for leave 

with 34% minority for stay
with 28% minority who did not care enough to vote

Your first line is wrong. It should be 37% minority for leave.

Modulus_Amps said:

it is still a majority when looked at as a whole

No, the exact point is that when looked at *as a whole* it is a minority - 37% to 63%.

Troy said:

I don't think you can class 37% of the electorate as a minority. Minroity would be more like 10% or less.

49.999% of the electorate is a minority.

Do you actually understand what minority and majority mean?

Sporky said:

It depends a bit on how you assess the didn't-voters.

If they saw it as "d'you want to change the current situation?" then not voting might be equivalent, to them, of "no, I don't want to change".

If they saw it as just a load of old grey men arguing a lot then it could well be "I just do not care what the outcome is".

If they saw it as something they didn't feel qualified to answer then...

If they thought it was definitely going one way or the other then it could be tacit approval of what they thought would happen anyway.

And, of course, it varies by person, just as leavers and remainers will each have had individual reasons.

Exactly - because they did not vote and you do not know how they might have, you cannot claim that a majority of the people voted for a change. (I know you aren't personally.)

True - but you cant claim the majority of the people voted NOT to change either.  To judge things your way, you are weighting the system so those that cant be bothered are assumed to not want change.  This is flawed.  You just dont know - and therefore, from a decision purpose you have to ignore the unkown.

paulmapp8306 said:

ICBM said:

Modulus_Amps said:

or 37% majority for leave 

with 34% minority for stay
with 28% minority who did not care enough to vote

Your first line is wrong. It should be 37% minority for leave.

Modulus_Amps said:

it is still a majority when looked at as a whole

No, the exact point is that when looked at *as a whole* it is a minority - 37% to 63%.

Troy said:

I don't think you can class 37% of the electorate as a minority. Minroity would be more like 10% or less.

49.999% of the electorate is a minority.

Do you actually understand what minority and majority mean?

Sporky said:

It depends a bit on how you assess the didn't-voters.

If they saw it as "d'you want to change the current situation?" then not voting might be equivalent, to them, of "no, I don't want to change".

If they saw it as just a load of old grey men arguing a lot then it could well be "I just do not care what the outcome is".

If they saw it as something they didn't feel qualified to answer then...

If they thought it was definitely going one way or the other then it could be tacit approval of what they thought would happen anyway.

And, of course, it varies by person, just as leavers and remainers will each have had individual reasons.

Exactly - because they did not vote and you do not know how they might have, you cannot claim that a majority of the people voted for a change. (I know you aren't personally.)

True - but you cant claim the majority of the people voted NOT to change either.  To judge things your way, you are weighting the system so those that cant be bothered are assumed to not want change.  This is flawed.  You just dont know - and therefore, from a decision purpose you have to ignore the unkown.

Statistics can always be made to favour your position should you wish.

Its simple - if you wanted only a majority decision, you could have asked :

1.  "Do you want to leave the EU" and count the yes votes only - needing 50% or more of those eligeable to change.  This favours the stay in group.

2.  "Do you want to leave the EU" and only count the no votes - needing 50% or more of those eligeable to not change  This favours the leave group.

You cant do either - so the only way you can - democratically ask the question, without weighting the result in favour of either is to do what they did.  Count both, but ignore those who didnt express an opinion.  

paulmapp8306

Not sure why the double post.

Nitefly

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

No-shows should count as votes for the status quo.  If you don't like the way it is, get off your arse and vote.

paulmapp8306

Fair enough - so come the next General Election, all eligible voters who dont actually register a voter should be assumed to be voting for the Conservatives then, as they are incumbent.

That wouldnt work in practice, as your not voting for the party, but for an MP - but it still applies.  Any non voters in a seat count towards the current incumbent of that seat.  In practice that would mean no seats would change.  Even in swing seats - which is where elections are won and lost, the % of non turnouts would pretty much mean the same party would hold the seat - so it would always be a Conservative win for ever more.  Cant see that going down well.

What happens if an MP doesnt stand - do you assume non turnouts are voting for his party, and count towards that parties new candidate - or for the MP.  If for the MP who do their votes now count for?

The system wouldnt work.  You can only take into account those that turn out and register a vote.  There is no choice but to ignore non voters in any count.

John_P

Nitefly said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

No-shows should count as votes for the status quo.  If you don't like the way it is, get off your arse and vote.

Would that mean we didn't join in the first referendum in the 70's?   

Or does it mean that the EU isn't allowed to change as various people claim it has plans to?

imo if you don't like one of the options then get off your arse and vote.

exocet

John_P;1134990" said:

Nitefly said:

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

No-shows should count as votes for the status quo.  If you don't like the way it is, get off your arse and vote.





Would that mean we didn't join in the first referendum in the 70's?   

Or does it mean that the EU isn't allowed to change as various people claim it has plans to?

imo if you don't like one of the options then get off your arse and vote.

The issue here is that General Election results under our FPTP system can be reversed at the next election.

The referendum result based on one person voting with all votes cast having a direct impact is very potent and irreversible (if we ignore the advisory nature of it). I can understand the thought process to make it more difficult to change from the status quo.

What's done is done, that said it's good to see so much debate on the underlying process and as others have said, perhaps we should make the study of politics a mandatory subject in schools.

ICBM

paulmapp8306 said:

Fair enough - so come the next General Election, all eligible voters who dont actually register a voter should be assumed to be voting for the Conservatives then, as they are incumbent.

That wouldnt work in practice, as your not voting for the party, but for an MP - but it still applies.  Any non voters in a seat count towards the current incumbent of that seat.  In practice that would mean no seats would change.  Even in swing seats - which is where elections are won and lost, the % of non turnouts would pretty much mean the same party would hold the seat - so it would always be a Conservative win for ever more.  Cant see that going down well.

Not really the same, since at an election you're choosing a representative on a wide range of issues, not asking a single question. This is really something that applies to single-question referenda.

paulmapp8306 said:

You can only take into account those that turn out and register a vote.  There is no choice but to ignore non voters in any count.

If you're going to do that some safeguard against a low turnout needs to be put in place, otherwise you can have very important decisions taken by a small minority. (Again there is a clear precedent, the first Scottish Devolution referendum 1979.)

John_P said:

Would that mean we didn't join in the first referendum in the 70's?

No, because that referendum was also to decide if we were *staying* in the EEC as it was then, having been taken in by Parliament. It was essentially asking the public to ratify that decision.

John_P said:

imo if you don't like one of the options then get off your arse and vote.

That absolutely is the solution to all this. But short of the Australian system of making it compulsory, it's hard to see that it can be achieved. Too many people simply can't be bothered… and then often whine about the results.

(Which is of course completely different from voting and then whining about the result .)

hungrymark

I don't like the argument that ICBM, Lloyd and Sporky are making here. It seems like a fiddle - trying to get the result you want on a technicality. Can you imagine the response if the government decided, post-election, that no shows should actually be considered votes for the incumbent? I mean, I voted tory and probably would if there was an election tomorrow, so it's no skin off my nose, but it seems a bit banana-republic-y. If people don't vote then that's their loss and I don't think you can make any assumptions about their sympathies. I nearly didn't vote because I couldn't make up my mind, but plumped for remain in the end. Right until the last day or two I would have voted leave though, and still think that that would have been a more accurate reflection of my views (I voted remain based on a very short-term outlook, wisely or not).

ICBM

hungrymark said:

I don't like the argument that ICBM, Lloyd and Sporky are making here. It seems like a fiddle - trying to get the result you want on a technicality. Can you imagine the response if the government decided, post-election, that no shows should actually be considered votes for the incumbent? I mean, I voted tory and probably would if there was an election tomorrow, so it's no skin off my nose, but it seems a bit banana-republic-y. If people don't vote then that's their loss and I don't think you can make any assumptions about their sympathies. I nearly didn't vote because I couldn't make up my mind, but plumped for remain in the end. Right until the last day or two I would have voted leave though, and still think that that would have been a more accurate reflection of my views (I voted remain based on a very short-term outlook, wisely or not).

It's not a fiddle if the rules are clearly set out before the vote, as they should have been. It would be if they were changed afterwards, I agree.

In fact in this case they were set clearly beforehand - the referendum was not binding. That's why I think that Parliament should simply overrule it, as it has every right to do, and a duty to if it believes doing so is in the national interest.