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

viz

ICBM said:

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.

And indeed in Europe's interest, because at the time of voting it had the interests of Europe at heart too, and technically-speaking, still does. That's why we can't negotiate before article 50, even informally, because we're both still on the same side.

paulmapp8306

I think its a fiddle whether the rules are set out or not.  The fiddle is making it so the prefered result is much easier get than the other - regardless of if that is set in advance, its still easier to get.   You have to make either option equally achievable, or your effectively rigging the result. 

paulmapp8306

ICBM said:

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.

Technically yes - but the vast majority of voters dont see it like that.  Most dont vote on the issues, they vote on the colour of the party - often decided generations ago.  Its not right, but it is true.

Your effectively offering most (with some differences in NI, Scotland and Wales) a single question.  Labour or Conservative.  Thats not how it should be, I dont condone it (in fact Ive voted Red, Blue and Yellow in my life - dependant on situation and Views) - but for most thats all it boils down to - so for most it IS a binary question.

holnrew

"WE WON, IT'S DEMOCRACY, END OF"

Chalky

Nitefly;1134935" 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.

So come next election, the no-shows should count as votes for Theresa, right?

hungrymark

ICBM;1135051" said:

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.

The short-term interests of the country are very different to the long-term interests. Short-term, yes, obviously we would be better off in the EU. Long-term, done right, I'm not so sure.

Cameron set his stall out early on that, although it wasn't legally binding, they would follow the results. Assumption of the incumbent for a no-show would just encourage (or do nothing to discourage) voter apathy, and if they reneged on the promise to follow through, what would have been the point of the referendum in the first place? Of course, you might think that it was pointless, but that's not how it was presented so it would be something of a fraud.

Sporky

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 didn't make that argument - I specifically said that it wasn't possible to say why people didn't vote. See:

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1134486/#Comment_1134486

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1134530/#Comment_1134530

http://thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/comment/1134891/#Comment_1134891

ICBM

holnrew said:

"WE WON, IT'S DEMOCRACY, END OF"

Actually this is a Parliamentary democracy not a direct one. The result has no legal force unless Parliament chooses to make it so. End of.

hungrymark said:

Cameron set his stall out early on that, although it wasn't legally binding, they would follow the results.

Cameron won't be PM when the decision has to be taken - he's intentionally left it to his successor. Even if he was, governments reverse policy on all sorts of things when it suits them.

hungrymark

Sporky;1135104" said:

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 didn't make that argument - I specifically said that it wasn't possible to say why people didn't vote.

No, that was Lloyd, apologies for any confusion. What I didn't agree with that you support is the idea that a majority of those who voted shouldn't necessarily count as a winning majority. I think, on principle, that if you don't vote then you've effectively withdrawn yourself from the electoral roll. Say what you like about the wisdom of a binary choice referendum but it did make the possible outcomes pretty crystal clear.

Sporky

hungrymark said:

No, that was Lloyd, apologies for any confusion.

No probs.

What I didn't agree with that you support is the idea that a majority of those who voted shouldn't necessarily count as a winning majority. I think, on principle, that if you don't vote then you've effectively withdrawn yourself from the electoral roll. Say what you like about the wisdom of a binary choice referendum but it did make the possible outcomes pretty crystal clear.

Yeah; I think I've not been clear there. I'm not even sure I am clear.

I object to statements that the result shows that a majority of people want to leave. The result shows that a majority (a slim one, but a majority nevertheless) of the people who could be arsed to vote want out.

Nitefly

Chalky said:

Nitefly;1134935" 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.

So come next election, the no-shows should count as votes for Theresa, right?

The no-shows should count as votes for the sitting member if that member is re-running, or for the sitting member's replacement.

Thus, in Theresa's constituency (assuming she wants to run for another term), then yes, no-shows would count as votes for her.  If she chooses NOT to run, they'd be counted as votes for the replacement Conservative candidate.  If they don't want that to happen, they have to get off their arses and vote for the candidate they want!

It's not perfect, and there would probably have to be a "None of the above" option, but it might encourage people to engage.

 

Modulus_Amps

ICBM said:

holnrew said:

"WE WON, IT'S DEMOCRACY, END OF"

Actually this is a Parliamentary democracy not a direct one. The result has no legal force unless Parliament chooses to make it so. End of.

hungrymark said:

Cameron set his stall out early on that, although it wasn't legally binding, they would follow the results.

Cameron won't be PM when the decision has to be taken - he's intentionally left it to his successor. Even if he was, governments reverse policy on all sorts of things when it suits them.

and I can see that happening here, but first they are going to make the EU squirm with the Austrian election later this year, the French election next year and we will hopefully get the change in policy that the major minority want.

Sporky

Modulus_Amps said:

and I can see that happening here, but first they are going to make the EU squirm with the Austrian election later this year, the French election next year and we will hopefully get the change in policy that the major minority want.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that there are plenty of remainers who want EU reform too.

exocet

paulmapp8306;1135062" said:

I think its a fiddle whether the rules are set out or not.  The fiddle is making it so the prefered result is much easier get than the other - regardless of if that is set in advance, its still easier to get.   You have to make either option equally achievable, or your effectively rigging the result. 

I really don't see it as a fiddle, more about achieving a requirement for a larger majority for such a significant change.

What If the government had been "pro leave" rather than pro remain? Setting the criteria that at least x % had to vote or the margin had to be at least x % points difference would have made it more difficult to achieve their aims.

My real concern here is that 52 v 48 is not a landslide. I don't care whether the majority voted to leave, the fact is that the country is divided on a massive scale. If a 2nd referendum were to be held, I have no doubt that the vote would be reversed. However I suspect that it would be close to the same margin only this time in favour of remain. In my view, that would still leave the country in a very difficult position with bitter divisions.

ICBM

Sporky said:

I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that there are plenty of remainers who want EU reform too.

You can speak for me too if you like. I know I'm probably one of the forum's most overtly pro-EU members, but being in favour of staying in doesn't mean I'm totally in favour of everything it does - far from it.

hungrymark

ICBM;1135109" said:

holnrew said:

"WE WON, IT'S DEMOCRACY, END OF"





Actually this is a Parliamentary democracy not a direct one. The result has no legal force unless Parliament chooses to make it so. End of.




hungrymark said:Cameron set his stall out early on that, although it wasn't legally binding, they would follow the results.





Cameron won't be PM when the decision has to be taken - he's intentionally left it to his successor. Even if he was, governments reverse policy on all sorts of things when it suits them.

Ah well, if they do it all the time that makes it OK ;-)

ICBM

hungrymark said:

Ah well, if they do it all the time that makes it OK ;-)

If they are doing it in what they believe to be the national interest it does.

Things change, and a government or a parliament that sticks rigidly to a previous decision in the face of evidence that it was probably the wrong one is not a good thing at all.

hungrymark

ICBM;1135182" said:

hungrymark said:Ah well, if they do it all the time that makes it OK ;-)





If they are doing it in what they believe to be the national interest it does.

Things change, and a government or a parliament that sticks rigidly to a previous decision in the face of evidence that it was probably the wrong one is not a good thing at all.

I actually agree - I don't believe a u-turn is necessarily a bad thing, or something to be ridiculed. But I don't agree that the evidence points to this being a bad decision on anything other than a short-term basis, and this was never meant to be a short-term decision.

Thing is, I could come up with any number of reasons why we should follow through with Brexit, and you could doubtless counter those with your own reasons to halt or reverse the process. They're both reasonable positions.

p90fool

ICBM;1135165" said:

Sporky said:I can't speak for anyone else, but I suspect that there are plenty of remainers who want EU reform too.





You can speak for me too if you like. I know I'm probably one of the forum's most overtly pro-EU members, but being in favour of staying in doesn't mean I'm totally in favour of everything it does - far from it.

Me too, I've said since the beginning, I totally believe in it as an ideal and as an institution, but it takes constant vigilance to stop it being a clumsy anachronism.

But what we've done is storm out of a job in a huff because the coffee machine is broken.

Sporky

So I'm a remainer Sporksperson?

I hope no-one finds out about my vote then.