Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[98elise]

User33678888 said:

Is there any other situation but politics where you take a vote and get a 49/51 result and say 'yes, that's decided it then, on we go' rather than 'we'd better talk about this some more'. I certainly couldn't run my business with only half the shareholders onboard.

What level of support do you normally need to pass any vote. Normally its 51%. That's how voting normally works.

If the brexit result had been the other way with the same margin, what would your thoughts be?

[jakesmith]

FN2TypeR said:

Decisions within your business aren't made on a majority shareholder voter?

Are shareholders normally involved in day to day running of businesses?

[jakesmith]

Mr GrimNasty said:

LOL, I'd take less of the re-moaner confirmation bias pills if I were you sonny.

And with Trump, strangely the only countries that have any substantial negative view of Trump are the ones with saturation negative MSM coverage.

No doubt the famously independern Pew Centre of research is all part of your MSM conspiracy too?

ETA And if you're going to blame the influence of the MSM for this, how do you explain the last GE in the UK, Corbyn hardly hardly had an easy ride in the media since taking office

Edited by jakesmith on Thursday 20th July 09:27

[turbobloke]

jakesmith said:

No doubt the famously independern Pew Centre of research is all part of your MSM conspiracy too?

That's the claim but their surveys can miss the sweet spot just like any other. From change.org quoting a degree agreement between primary sources Carroll Doherty (Pew) and Daniel Webster (JHCGPR) :

In December, Pew reported that for the first time in 20 years, Americans believe it is more important to protect gun rights than it is to control gun ownership. The report received widespread media coverage because it stands in stark contrast to the crisis of gun violence that claims 30,000 lives each year. But the premise of the question is flawed. It presents a false choice between regulating firearms and protecting Second Amendment rights. Pew's director of political research, Carroll Doherty, admitted as much when he told Mother Jones "Is it a perfect question? Probably not." Experts on gun policy are critical of the question. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research told Media Matters "I could not think of a worse way to ask questions about public opinions about gun policies."

An example but a relevant example.

Reputation is one thing, nullius in verba is another and a better way.

[Murph7355]

jakesmith said:

No doubt the famously independern Pew Centre of research is all part of your MSM conspiracy too?
...

Awesome charts.

Global confidence in democratically elected leaders is always a big deal to the electorate of the nation concerned I would think (at least the ones who voted for their choice).

What does "confidence" mean btw? (2nd chart).

Is it "confidence that current trade deals will remain"? "confidence that their nationals will be able to travel there"? "confidence that a world war won't start"? "confidence that their own interests aren't about to suffer"?

Which 37 countries were asked? And who within them? What questions were asked?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Murph7355 said:

User33678888 said:

Much of my business is with overseas clients, the vast majority of whom are EU based. Despite having done nothing wrong and still having all of the same contacts and infrastructure in place all around the EU, some of my clients are looking elsewhere as it's tricky for them to be forward planning their subcontracting to a company based in the UK. Understandably.
It is costing businesses and the taxman money already, and we really look like idiots to most Europeans. When you tell them that this is being railroaded ahead by a PM with the lowest popularity figures in decades, after the country was split right down the middle they genuinely sound perplexed that we're putting up with it.

Is there any other situation but politics where you take a vote and get a 49/51 result and say 'yes, that's decided it then, on we go' rather than 'we'd better talk about this some more'. I certainly couldn't run my business with only half the shareholders onboard.

It was 48/52...but if you keep going long enough you'll be able to convince yourself your side won.

Irrespective of TM's popularity her party took its biggest share of the vote in over 20yrs. Yes, their campaign was utterly shambolic. And yet...there she is.

Equally 90% or more of the vote went to parties who were on for exiting the EU. A poll quoted on here in support of the Remain viewpoint actually noted 68% of people in this country did not agree with the need for a second vote. Even 48/52 is yesterday's chip paper and it doesn't appear to be getting closer to your way of thinking.

How many of the Europeans you have spoken to were from Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland etc? (Specifically young people in those countries). How many are from countries that are significant net contributors not in the Euro? How many aren't benefiting from cheap labour in the Eurozone?

Shareholder votes get carried on majorities. Do you have rules in place that prevent this? Do you demand a bigger majority for change? How many decisions actually get made on that basis?

I still find it odd that people are still moaning about the result of the 2016 referendum, when not a single person in the UK voted, or was given the chance to vote on whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU.
If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU, in the same duplicitous way it took the UK into it there would be outrage. the 2016 referendum was the first democratic vote, the people of the UK were ever given on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. They voted out.

[jakesmith]

turbobloke said:

That's the claim but their surveys can miss the sweet spot just like any other. From change.org quoting a degree agreement between primary sources Carroll Doherty (Pew) and Daniel Webster (JHCGPR) :

In December, Pew reported that for the first time in 20 years, Americans believe it is more important to protect gun rights than it is to control gun ownership. The report received widespread media coverage because it stands in stark contrast to the crisis of gun violence that claims 30,000 lives each year. But the premise of the question is flawed. It presents a false choice between regulating firearms and protecting Second Amendment rights. Pew's director of political research, Carroll Doherty, admitted as much when he told Mother Jones "Is it a perfect question? Probably not." Experts on gun policy are critical of the question. Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research told Media Matters "I could not think of a worse way to ask questions about public opinions about gun policies."

An example but a relevant example.

Reputation is one thing, nullius in verba is another and a better way.

'Confidence in US President' and 'view of the US' are pretty straight forward really

[turbobloke]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I still find it odd that people are still moaning about the result of the 2016 referendum, when not a single person in the UK voted, or was given the chance to vote on whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU.
If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU, in the same duplicitous way it took the UK into it there would be outrage. the 2016 referendum was the first democratic vote, the people of the UK were ever given on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. They voted out.

Indeed, and the Leave vote was in the face of a continuous flow of dire predictions of instant doom and slower more tortuous doom. A lot of it from the PM and Chancellor. Enough people still wanted out for their own reasons, out we are going, and rightly so.

Comments from EU folk supposedly not understanding how we "put up with it" are easy to counter - we put up with democratic results and don't ride roughshod over the will of enough people to win a vote. Nor is it welcome when politicos and activists attempt to do so. Apparently that isn't the EU way, so they're welcome to theirs and we to ours.

Whiffs of vested interests appear now and then but no matter.

[Murph7355]

Pan Pan Pan said:

I still find it odd that people are still moaning about the result of the 2016 referendum, when not a single person in the UK voted, or was given the chance to vote on whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU.
If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU, in the same duplicitous way it took the UK into it there would be outrage. the 2016 referendum was the first democratic vote, the people of the UK were ever given on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. They voted out.

I agree.

If a vote had been given at each major treaty change I doubt we'd have been members beyond 1992.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Murph7355 said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

I still find it odd that people are still moaning about the result of the 2016 referendum, when not a single person in the UK voted, or was given the chance to vote on whether or not the UK should be a member of the EU.
If the UK government had tried to take the UK out of the EU, in the same duplicitous way it took the UK into it there would be outrage. the 2016 referendum was the first democratic vote, the people of the UK were ever given on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of the EU. They voted out.

I agree.

If a vote had been given at each major treaty change I doubt we'd have been members beyond 1992.

Especially if it had been made clear then to the people of the UK what membership of the EU would actually mean. And yet now we have remoaners, whingeing on, about no one knowing what will happen when the UK leaves the EU? They didn't seem so concerned about not knowing what would happen, when the UK was duped into the EU without a democratic vote for the people on the matter, A severe case of double standards it would seem.

[jakesmith]

Murph7355 said:

I agree.

If a vote had been given at each major treaty change I doubt we'd have been members beyond 1992.

We have elected representatives to represent our interest in formal forums for better or worse, who we can scrutinise and remove if needs be.
Asking every Tom Dick & Harry about complex international legal and economic issues with far reaching effects... people who may vote in a simplistic & emotional way... who have no comprehension of these sorts of matters - doesn't make sense to me. Why not have referendums on everything. In my opinion they actually go against the point of elected representation which is a cornerstone of our very long-established and stable democracy.
I'm not saying I have a lot of faith in politicians. But more so than your average person in the street.

[Pan Pan Pan]

jakesmith said:

Murph7355 said:

I agree.

If a vote had been given at each major treaty change I doubt we'd have been members beyond 1992.

We have elected representatives to represent our interest in formal forums for better or worse, who we can scrutinise and remove if needs be.
Asking every Tom Dick & Harry about complex international legal and economic issues with far reaching effects... people who may vote in a simplistic & emotional way... who have no comprehension of these sorts of matters - doesn't make sense to me. Why not have referendums on everything. In my opinion they actually go against the point of elected representation which is a cornerstone of our very long-established and stable democracy.
I'm not saying I have a lot of faith in politicians. But more so than your average person in the street.

That comment would only be valid if the UK had been taken into the EU on the basis of a democratic vote as well. but it was not. The only democratic vote the citizens of the UK have ever been given on whether or not they want the UK to be in the EU was in 2016. They voted out.

[Dr Jekyll]

jakesmith said:

We have elected representatives to represent our interest in formal forums for better or worse, who we can scrutinise and remove if needs be.
Asking every Tom Dick & Harry about complex international legal and economic issues with far reaching effects... people who may vote in a simplistic & emotional way... who have no comprehension of these sorts of matters - doesn't make sense to me. Why not have referendums on everything. In my opinion they actually go against the point of elected representation which is a cornerstone of our very long-established and stable democracy.
I'm not saying I have a lot of faith in politicians. But more so than your average person in the street.

But it was these elected representatives that decided to put the matter to a referendum. So presumably it's only OK for them to make decisions if they agree with you?

[jakesmith]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Especially if it had been made clear then to the people of the UK what membership of the EU would actually mean. And yet now we have remoaners, whingeing on, about no one knowing what will happen when the UK leaves the EU? They didn't seem so concerned about not knowing what would happen, when the UK was duped into the EU without a democratic vote for the people on the matter, A severe case of double standards it would seem.

Is that a fair comparison? Surely it was inevitable that the freedoms of movement and the European Court would be needed in a free trade area.
Were we tricked on joining, or ignorant? And why would it be any different this time round?
Joining the EU has hardly been harmful to our economy, I can't really see how we have suffered as a result of EU membership could someone provide a simple list perhaps? Hopefully not 'Pride' or similar though.

[s2art]

jakesmith said:

Joining the EU has hardly been harmful to our economy, I can't really see how we have suffered as a result of EU membership could someone provide a simple list perhaps? Hopefully not 'Pride' or similar though.

Just isnt knowable.Counterfactuals rarely are. Arguable had we gone balls out for FTAs and inter-national agreements on co-operation instead of joining the EEA/EU we may have been better off economically in the long term.|The EEC/EU was not optimised for the UK economy, rather it seemed to favour manufacture and agriculture over services.

[Dr Jekyll]

jakesmith said:

Is that a fair comparison? Surely it was inevitable that the freedoms of movement and the European Court would be needed in a free trade area.

No, look at NAFTA.

[Pan Pan Pan]

jakesmith said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Especially if it had been made clear then to the people of the UK what membership of the EU would actually mean. And yet now we have remoaners, whingeing on, about no one knowing what will happen when the UK leaves the EU? They didn't seem so concerned about not knowing what would happen, when the UK was duped into the EU without a democratic vote for the people on the matter, A severe case of double standards it would seem.

Is that a fair comparison? Surely it was inevitable that the freedoms of movement and the European Court would be needed in a free trade area.
Were we tricked on joining, or ignorant? And why would it be any different this time round?
Joining the EU has hardly been harmful to our economy, I can't really see how we have suffered as a result of EU membership could someone provide a simple list perhaps? Hopefully not 'Pride' or similar though.

Try the UK being the second greatest net contributor of funds into the EU`s coffers, but never having received a single net positive penny of funding for the entire time the UK has been a member of the EU.
Try the seizure of 80% of the fish stocks in UK territorial waters, for which the UK received no compensation whatsoever.
Try the fact that the UK has run a trade deficit with the EU for almost al of the 40+ years it has been a member of the EEC/EU, which amounted to 71 billion pounds in 2016 alone.
Try the use of EU cash to transfer businesses from the UK to other member states in the EU.

Why would it be evident to anyone in 1975 that membership of the EEC would result in the EEC changing itself into something completely different (the EU). When then, there was only a tiny fraction of the information available for the UK public, than was available in 2016. On this basis the vote that will take the UK out of the EU, was far, far more informed, and therefore even more valid, than the one which kept the UK in the EEC. (after already having been sold down the river without asking the people of the UK by the then government in 1973).

[turbobloke]

s2art said:

jakesmith said:

Joining the EU has hardly been harmful to our economy, I can't really see how we have suffered as a result of EU membership could someone provide a simple list perhaps? Hopefully not 'Pride' or similar though.

Just isnt knowable.Counterfactuals rarely are.

Exact;y. Those asking this question know, or ought to know, it is unanswerable.

There's no way of going back in time to see how things would have turned out if we had not gone along the EEC and EU path.

The notion of 'harm' to the economy is meaningless in this context - the question is, would the economy have performed even better, outside the EEC/EU, and the answer doesn't exist and cannot be known.

[jakesmith]

turbobloke said:

Exact;y. Those asking this question know, or ought to know, it is unanswerable.

There's no way of going back in time to see how things would have turned out if we had not gone along the EEC and EU path.

The notion of 'harm' to the economy is meaningless in this context - the question is, would the economy have performed even better, outside the EEC/EU, and the answer doesn't exist and cannot be known.

Yes of course that's all true, as can not be known the impact of leaving. What we do know is that our global ranking in GDP has stayed the almost same since joining. It was unlikely to overtake Germany, Japan, USA, China due to population size and manufacturing.

With the EU block forming the 2nd largest economy in the world, and being pretty opposed to making Brexit look successful, and knowing how devious and caniving they can / will be to achieve that, I see it as a huge risk to leave. Ironically that in itself is a good reason to leave and i do get that, but somewhat feels like cutting your nose to spite your face.

There was a very good looking list from the PanPan poster above. How about the intangible but longest period of peace and prosperity ever, following a period of conflict so ghastly that many would not actually believe how bad life was across Europe and the attrocities that took place. Germany has done very well out of the EU and establishing itself as a manufacturing powerhouse but it was also making amends for something unspeakable. With a resurgent Russia and isolationist USA, there is an intangible benefit to having a close relationship with countries we have historically had fractious relationships with. Which is a lot of Europe.

There are also very tangible benefits. Of course Fishing will benefit from Brexit, that is a great example. Where does that rank though in terms of its economic relevance? How many new jobs vs how many lost, and will we have a native workforce to staff it? I don't pretend to know. What about contributions from the EU? We may be a net contributor but all those tourist attractions in Cornwall and Wales aren't going to get sweet FA when we leave the EU, they will be hit bloody hard. Maybe they can all move to the fishing industry?

[Sway]

Dr Jekyll said:

jakesmith said:

Is that a fair comparison? Surely it was inevitable that the freedoms of movement and the European Court would be needed in a free trade area.

No, look at NAFTA.

Indeed. Name a single Free Trade Area, other than the EU, that has such terms (or payments - positive or negative).

The biggest success the EU has ever achieved is getting pretty much an entire continent of educated people to believe that the EU is a typical approach to improving trade or international relations...