UK Politics: The Vote

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

It'll be a Remain win.  I still think it will also be a lot more comfortable than the polls have suggested.  Very few polls have taken into consideration the 4M British nationals living abroad that can vote.  Almost all of them that have bothered to vote will look after their own interests.  Which is naturally to remain.  From the voting turn out I am not expecting the Brexit vote to be much more than 40%.

In 2015, no more than 106,000 British nationals abroad were registered to vote here (excluding service personnel).  There are estimates that the number may have reached 300,000 this time, but certainly no higher than that.  They could make a difference in a very tight contest, but it will be a small one.  As against that, service personnel aren't contacted by pollsters, and many of them will vote Leave.

[mormont]

20 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

Election promise. 

Yes, I know: but what is it that makes public opinion so influential that Cameron and the shadowy elites can be forced to concede the election promise, forced to actually deliver it, forced to go all the way to the point where 14 million or more people have actually, publicly, undeniably voted for Brexit, and then at that point they step in to halt the process? If they're that powerful, why have they been powerless to stop this up to now? Why are they only able to intervene at the time when it's most difficult to intervene?

What you're suggesting makes no sense at all, even on its own terms. It's the sort of theory you'd only believe if you first wanted it to be true.

[Ser Gareth]

1 minute ago, Emre Mor-mont said:

Yes, I know: but what is it that makes public opinion so influential that Cameron and the shadowy elites can be forced to concede the election promise, forced to actually deliver it, forced to go all the way to the point where 14 million or more people have actually, publicly, undeniably voted for Brexit, and then at that point they step in to halt the process? If they're that powerful, why have they been powerless to stop this up to now? Why are they only able to intervene at the time when it's most difficult to intervene?

What you're suggesting makes no sense at all, even on its own terms. It's the sort of theory you'd only believe if you first wanted it to be true.

The election is binding.  Cameron wants to be elected.  So he makes the promise to hold the referendum.  He wants to be elected again.  So he holds the referendum.

This is nothing to do with shadowy elites.  I am not some conspiracy nut.  This is simple logical reasoning that people only relinquish power when forced too or when they no longer want it.

This referendum will not force the Government to follow the will of the people.  An election does force the parties to follow the will of the people (kind of, Cameron won less than 40% of the vote last time).

In the unlikely event that Brexit wins what is most likely to happen is that the referendum results will be "discussed" in Parliament.  After deliberation it will be put to a parliamentary vote as to whether we should remain or leave.  Parliament will vote remain.  Democratic process followed and over and out.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 22/06/2016 at 1:46 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

On the question of whether the referendum is binding: legally no, politically yes. Legally, sovereignty rests with Parliament, not the people, so Parliament can ignore the referendum if it chooses. Politically, Parliament has no choice but to respect the will of the people.

And the assertion that Brexit wouldn't be "allowed" to happen is nonsense. The EU could certainly put in a legal provision against it, but it could never enforce it, even if it were stupid enough to go down that route. Not least because the EU doesn't have an army.

[Commodore]

Nigel is terrific, more thoughtful and well spoken than any american politician (that's not saying much, but still). 

If you believe in speaking truth to power, having someone around unafraid to dress down EU leaders to their face in public is a healthy thing, whether he's right or wrong. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

5 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

The election is binding.  Cameron wants to be elected.  So he makes the promise to hold the referendum.  He wants to be elected again.  So he holds the referendum.

This is nothing to do with shadowy elites.  I am not some conspiracy nut.  This is simple logical reasoning that people only relinquish power when forced too or when they no longer want it.

This referendum will not force the Government to follow the will of the people.  An election does force the parties to follow the will of the people (kind of, Cameron won less than 40% of the vote last time).

In the unlikely event that Brexit wins what is most likely to happen is that the referendum results will be "discussed" in Parliament.  After deliberation it will be put to a parliamentary vote as to whether we should remain or leave.  Parliament will vote remain.  Democratic process followed and over and out.

If I might draw an analogy.

In 1993 New Zealand had a referendum on its voting system - the old First Past the Post system vs a German-style Mixed Member Proportional. All the elites of the two big parties were rabidly opposed to change. There were hysterical predictions of what would happen without "strong government".

MMP won. Parliament, as per the will of the people, passed legislation enacting the change, and we have had that voting system ever since. A Government ignoring a referendum previously declared to be binding is not a politically viable proposition.

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Commodore said:

Nigel is terrific, more thoughtful and well spoken than any american politician (that's not saying much, but still). 

If you believe in speaking truth to power, having someone around unafraid to dress down EU leaders in public is a healthy thing, whether he's right or wrong. 

He's also a massive cunt and a horrible racist.

 

[Ser Gareth]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

If I might draw an analogy.

In 1993 New Zealand had a referendum on its voting system - the old First Past the Post system vs a German-style Mixed Member Proportional. All the elites of the two big parties were rabidly opposed to change. There were hysterical predictions of what would happen without "strong government".

MMP won. Parliament, as per the will of the people, passed legislation enacting the change, and we have had that voting system ever since. A Government ignoring a referendum previously declared to be binding is not a politically viable proposition.

Are you sure that referendum was just an advisory?  Even if it was it doesn't prove anything.  Because each referendum is held on its own merits.  As someone pointed out earlier in the thread Greece held one too.

I found a good article on it.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

[Ser Gareth]

4 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

He's also a massive cunt and a horrible racist.

 

Just to clarify (and I am not disputing your viewpoint here), being anti-immigration is not the same thing as being a racist.  A racist can be for immigration.  Someone who isn't racist can be totally against it.

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

The election is binding.  Cameron wants to be elected.  So he makes the promise to hold the referendum.  He wants to be elected again.  So he holds the referendum.

This is nothing to do with shadowy elites.  I am not some conspiracy nut.  This is simple logical reasoning that people only relinquish power when forced too or when they no longer want it.

This referendum will not force the Government to follow the will of the people.  An election does force the parties to follow the will of the people (kind of, Cameron won less than 40% of the vote last time).

In the unlikely event that Brexit wins what is most likely to happen is that the referendum results will be "discussed" in Parliament.  After deliberation it will be put to a parliamentary vote as to whether we should remain or leave.  Parliament will vote remain.  Democratic process followed and over and out.

I don't get this at all.

Consideration for the next election forces him to follow through on a non-binding electoral promise, but he'll blythely ignore a subsequent majority mandate? So more people in the next election will (by his calculation) vote for him for following through on a promise from 6 years prior than will vote against him for ignoring the national referendum 4 years prior?

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Ser Gareth said:

Are you sure that referendum was just an advisory?  Even if it was it doesn't prove anything.  Because each referendum is held on its own merits.  As someone pointed out earlier in the thread Greece held one too.

I found a good article on it.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexit-2016-6

New Zealand and the UK have practically identical governmental systems (take the UK, subtract devolution, the House of Lords, and the EU, and add proportional representation, and you've got New Zealand). We also have a sovereign parliament without a written constitution, et cetera. The 1993 referendum was politically (if not legally) binding. Just as this one is.

I mean, there is also nothing legally stopping the UK Parliament pulling out without a referendum either. But that would be politically ridiculous. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

58 minutes ago, Ser Gareth said:

One thing my time on earth has taught me?  People look after themselves.  Even those that run around looking after others do so because it makes themselves feel good.

Take Dyson for example.  Of course he is anti-EU.  The reason?  The EU passed a law that really screwed up the sales of his vacuum cleaners and handed a massively competitive edge to a German rival.  Now if the EU had passed a law that benefitted Dyson and hampered his German rival?  Then he'd be out in the press supporting Remain.

I was all for Europe.  I still am at heart.  But it's been an economic and political disaster.  Too much greed when the union wasn't economically, politically or culturally stable.  The whole foundations of the EU are built on quick sand.

Well now I don't disagree with you again. In part.

Theres no doubt Europe is hugely unbalanced and inefficient and works better for some countries than others. Can't argue with that. However I still think the concept of a europe sticking together and aiming for the same values is a good thing. What I worry about is what the world looks like without a united Europe. What happens to all the small countries looking for protection and co-operation.. potentially they go off an join some other trading bloc or form their own. Even now there is talk of some of the more right wing countries like Hungary and Austria getting together to form their own power bloc, where they can all agree on their own less than liberal forms of power. Or Russia steps in and fills the void that Europe has left, or China does. 

I don't see any of that being a better option. 

[The Marquis de Leech]

I'd argue that the Euro has done more to create a disunited Europe than anything since 1945.

[Commodore]

10 minutes ago, Spockydog said:

He's also a massive cunt and a horrible racist.

 

the threshold for calling someone a racist in Europe is so low compared to America, the term might as well have different meanings

[Spockydog]

2 minutes ago, Commodore said:

the threshold for calling someone a racist in Europe is so low compared to America

For which I am eternally thankful.

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

1 minute ago, Commodore said:

the threshold for calling someone a racist in Europe is so low compared to America, the term might as well have different meanings

OK. How about "actively courting the support of racists in a manner that is at best reckless and at worst cynical demagoguery"?

Speaking as someone with Leave sympathies, it's a crying shame that this turd was allowed anywhere near the campaign. He's turned something that should have been about democracy into something about fear and hatred. 

[Ser Gareth]

9 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

I don't get this at all.

Consideration for the next election forces him to follow through on a non-binding electoral promise, but he'll blythely ignore a subsequent majority mandate? So more people in the next election will (by his calculation) vote for him for following through on a promise from 6 years prior than will vote against him for ignoring the national referendum 4 years prior?

 

Welcome to politics.  You're trying to apply logic to it.  That's why you don't get it.  If you think central government is nuts you should try working with local councillors.  It's like pulling teeth.

[James Arryn]

5 minutes ago, Commodore said:

the threshold for calling someone a racist in Europe is so low compared to America, the term might as well have different meanings

There are 2 ways this could be meaningful, and I think you're assuming only one of them matters.

[Spockydog]

1 minute ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

OK. How about "actively courting the support of racists in a manner that is at best reckless and at worst cynical demagoguery"?

Speaking as someone with Leave sympathies, it's a crying shame that this turd was allowed anywhere near the campaign. He's turned something that should have been about democracy into something about fear and hatred. 

That's exactly how I feel, and I ain't having nothing to do with it.

 

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

Honestly a lot of the problems people are bringing up here are the reasons I voted to stay, there is no guarantee as to what we get if we vote for leave, the vote is politically binding, as RBPL has stated, but it is up to Cameron's successor to decide how to interpret that. The status of our future relationship with the EU will be decided by BoJo or Gove or whoever else, there is no guarantee we will not be affected by EU legislation (though TBH I support most European laws that apply to Britain), there is not even any guarantee that Britain will "take control of it's borders" as most Brexiters hope for, it may well be that in our negotiations with the EU we agree to some kind of freedom of movement deal, or at least very easy to acquire work visas, in which case the vote to leave has done nothing.