Brexit again...

[Bycarsbill]

On 21/10/2019 at 21:21, Fosse69 said:

52% voted to leave, to overturn that vote the remain % in the Confirmation vote  would have to reach 60% which by far exceeds all polls in the last few years. That is my simplification..

AS I've tried to point out to Nofinikea, percentages are irrelevant.  Assuming there was to be a "confirmation vote" and assuming the ground rules are the same as for the first referendum, then to overturn the vote, remain would only have to poll one additional vote than 'leave'. However, the biggest problem with any suggestion of a re-run whether it's called a "people's vote" a "confirmation vote" or any other title you care to come up with, is that the question (s) on any ballot paper are a matter of pure conjecture and subject to widely varying views from different interest groups.  I'm certain the LibDems would want "remain" as an option on the ballot sheet, whereas any leavers would probably only wish to place a binary question of vote for a deal or no deal--this is part of the reason why I personally believe that it's a crazy proposition to suggest any further vote (apart form a general election) when the result of the first referendum is yet to be honoured.  And I'm a 'remainer' by instinct!!. 

[geosname]

21 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

The Referendum Bill passed by a Parliamentary majority of 491 was for a advisory vote, how many had bothered to read the paper work I do not know. 

Cameron decided to hold a referendum against the advice of Osbourne, and as PM fell by his sword when it did not go as he expected. He gave the impression that the result would be followed despite the nature of the referendum and without the safeguard of a threshold, completely to blame for the shambles that has followed.

As for Article 50, it is the exit process that can have any result from cliff edge to scrapping the exit, I assume the cliff-edge was put in to stop time wasters, but seen as an opportunity to crash out direct to WTO. It gives the chance to view deals available and demonstrate to the electorate what Brexit means, parliament or the electorate can then decide what to do.

491 wanted it..... 491 voted for it...... If they didn't know what it entailed why vote for it.

If article 50 has a default crash out why vote for it if you are not prepared to crash out.

If what you say is correct why did both major parties vow to honour the result.

[Fosse69]

42 minutes ago, Bycarsbill said:

AS I've tried to point out to Nofinikea, percentages are irrelevant.  Assuming there was to be a "confirmation vote" and assuming the ground rules are the same as for the first referendum, then to overturn the vote, remain would only have to poll one additional vote than 'leave'. However, the biggest problem with any suggestion of a re-run whether it's called a "people's vote" a "confirmation vote" or any other title you care to come up with, is that the question (s) on any ballot paper are a matter of pure conjecture and subject to widely varying views from different interest groups.  I'm certain the LibDems would want "remain" as an option on the ballot sheet, whereas any leavers would probably only wish to place a binary question of vote for a deal or no deal--this is part of the reason why I personally believe that it's a crazy proposition to suggest any further vote (apart form a general election) when the result of the first referendum is yet to be honoured.  And I'm a 'remainer' by instinct!!. 

The whole point of Nofinikea`s post is that the ground rules would not be the same, there would be a threshold.

[Davebrad]

50 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

The Referendum Bill passed by a Parliamentary majority of 491 was for a advisory vote, how many had bothered to read the paper work I do not know. 

Cameron decided to hold a referendum against the advice of Osbourne, and as PM fell by his sword when it did not go as he expected. He gave the impression that the result would be followed despite the nature of the referendum and without the safeguard of a threshold, completely to blame for the shambles that has followed.

As for Article 50, it is the exit process that can have any result from cliff edge to scrapping the exit, I assume the cliff-edge was put in to stop time wasters, but seen as an opportunity to crash out direct to WTO. It gives the chance to view deals available and demonstrate to the electorate what Brexit means, parliament or the electorate can then decide what to do.

i'm sorry, but the 2nd sentence, in the 2nd paragraph, is all sphericals, "he gave the impression that the result would be followed" no he said it in plain English "we will abide by the result". Although referendums are advisory, with a pm saying that, that's why there was a 72-2% turnout, with feelings so high, after the result he said "the result of the European Union referendum must be respected"...

[whotobeakiller]

1 hour ago, tommytunstall said:

They are both first class constituency MPs, who want Brexit settled, I applaud their courage and conviction 

They didn't want Brexit and still don't want it. They are merely attempting to cling onto their seats. Both have not got  an overwhelming majority in their constituencies

[Fosse69]

41 minutes ago, geosname said:

491 wanted it..... 491 voted for it...... If they didn't know what it entailed why vote for it.

If article 50 has a default crash out why vote for it if you are not prepared to crash out.

If what you say is correct why did both major parties vow to honour the result.

You will have to ask MPs why they voted, they sometimes get confused with amendments and even vote against their own bill.

Article 50 is the only way out of the EU, so no choice. 

Honour/respect the result can be satisfied by seeking out the best deal, but if not as good as our current deal,  ( which is a better deal than any other EU country ) telling the country that Brexit is not the way to go. As with buying a house, the results of the building survey can change things.

[Fosse69]

16 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

i'm sorry, but the 2nd sentence, in the 2nd paragraph, is all sphericals, "he gave the impression that the result would be followed" no he said it in plain English "we will abide by the result". Although referendums are advisory, with a pm saying that, that's why there was a 72-2% turnout, with feelings so high, after the result he said "the result of the European Union referendum must be respected"...

That is how I view politicians, I struggle to believe what they say, Cameron a PR man thus words for an audience, Johnson a windbag who spouts whatever will inflate him, Corbyn a back bench MP with principles but not popular ones, without a life long driving ambition to be a PM unlike the other 2, but thrust into a leadership role. 

[geosname]

28 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Keep up man.

The confirmatory vote would be between remain or which ever deal is on the table to leave.  No Deal is off the table if the EU extend...

Ergo, it's not conjecture, its actuals, hence the term confirmatory vote.

Good god!

The problem with the suggestion is quite a simple one.....

There is no deal on the table.

The only thing to offer is the withdrawal agreement..... which has nothing to do with trade, cooperation, single market, customs union etc.... in fact it has none of the essential bits of the relationship between the UK and the EU. 

So what in fact would be offered in another referendum before the first is honoured is......

Remain.....

No deal...

We don't know what the deal will be.....

If you offer more than or differences to the first referendum questions, I would contend it is not a second referendum it's a different referendum. 

I would also contend that if you offered the "we don't know what the deal would be" choice its difficult to see it as a confirmatory referendum , because it's extremely difficult to confirm an unknown except actually confirming that it is unknown.

[geosname]

27 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

You will have to ask MPs why they voted, they sometimes get confused with amendments and even vote against their own bill.

Article 50 is the only way out of the EU, so no choice. 

Honour/respect the result can be satisfied by seeking out the best deal, but if not as good as our current deal,  ( which is a better deal than any other EU country ) telling the country that Brexit is not the way to go. As with buying a house, the results of the building survey can change things.

2 things mate.

If you don't want out you don't vote to enact article 50..... it's a no brainer.

We can't seek a deal because we are not out so there is no deal to compare with remaining.... EU rules..... You are comparing the divorce settlement/withdrawal agreement with remaining..... there is no comparison

[Jacko51]

47 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

after the result he said "the result of the European Union referendum must be respected"...

And then buggered off.

[geosname]

17 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

That is how I view politicians, I struggle to believe what they say, Cameron a PR man thus words for an audience, Johnson a windbag who spouts whatever will inflate him, Corbyn a back bench MP with principles but not popular ones, without a life long driving ambition to be a PM unlike the other 2, but thrust into a leadership role. 

Where has this "thrust into a leadership role" sprung from..... he could have simply said no.... take my name off the ballot paper.

[geosname]

1 minute ago, Jacko51 said:

And then buggered off.

Seems like a sensible decision in hindsight...... the worm.

[Fosse69]

15 minutes ago, geosname said:

2 things mate.

If you don't want out you don't vote to enact article 50..... it's a no brainer.

We can't seek a deal because we are not out so there is no deal to compare with remaining.... EU rules..... You are comparing the divorce settlement/withdrawal agreement with remaining..... there is no comparison

If you do not enact article 50 you are not respecting the referendum

[Davebrad]

14 minutes ago, Jacko51 said:

And then buggered off.

he did that... but his first statement about the referendum I mentioned brought out the voters 72-2% the biggest turn out in years,

[geosname]

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

If you do not enact article 50 you are not respecting the referendum

And demanding a second referendum does?