EU membership referendum debate thread

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 08 Oct 2016, 11:51

A referendum is different from an election in that it is a single topic vote. It is also a decision based on a defined majority. In contrast, an elected government is mostly decided by a minority. They then start implementing policies which were not in the manifesto, and not implementing policies that were in the manifesto. They interfere with the status quo, making changes for the sake of change.

Proportional representation would give credibility. In the case of the 2015 election it would have meant there would be more UKIP MPs and fewer SNP MPs. In fact there would be fewer SNP MPs than UKIP MPs.

Hence the argument for not complaining about an elected government is flawed.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 08 Oct 2016, 13:15

I don't agree with the argument that you should not complain about the result of an election.

The turnout was 72.2%. That means the under 38% of the electorate voted for the vote to leave. That is a minority. However, even if 99% of the the electorate had voted to leave that would not be a good reason to stop people saying publicly that they think the decision was wrong.

If someone who did not vote in the referendum or who voted to leave is unhappy with the consequences then they are welcome to say this, but they should note that they are at least in part to blame for the outcome.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 08 Oct 2016, 14:34

johnhemming2 wrote:I don't agree with the argument that you should not complain about the result of an election.

The turnout was 72.2%. That means the under 38% of the electorate voted for the vote to leave. That is a minority. However, even if 99% of the the electorate had voted to leave that would not be a good reason to stop people saying publicly that they think the decision was wrong.

If someone who did not vote in the referendum or who voted to leave is unhappy with the consequences then they are welcome to say this, but they should note that they are at least in part to blame for the outcome.

Again Democracy is the worst possible system except for all the others. ( I don't know who coined that phrase but it works here.)
I think your argument about the turnout fails both because not voting is a free choice 27.8 percent of voters made and if you somehow compelled 100 percent voting you have no way of knowing which way the none voters would vote. Certainly not all one way or the other.
I can tell you from numerous vote counting sessions that once you have ten percent of actual votes counted the lead seldom changes while counting the remaining ninety percent.
To complain about the election is protected free speech and also a waste of time as it is over and done with. Now is the time to talk about the effects of the vote as they develop and comparing actual events with what was promised which is a very legitimate pastime.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 08 Oct 2016, 17:07

johnhemming2 wrote:If you use that argument then you should not complain about the result of the election in 2015 or any of the policies implemented by the government.

I take the view that there is a freedom of speech which also applies for people who disagree with me. You (Little John) are quite uncomfortable with people who disagree with you voicing their disagreement.

There is no illegitimacy about voicing disappointment at the result of a given vote or of pointing out that the promises of a given party have not been delivered in either a general election or a referendum. This is particularly so in the case of a general election where there is the possibility of reversing the vote every five years. However, any further comparison of the democratic results of the referendum and a general election are specious on two grounds.

Firstly, general election results, as I have already mentioned,are designed to be potentially reversed every five years. Secondly, most importantly, the electoral system of first-past-the-post in conjunction with the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries means that the democratic legitimacy of a UK general election is far below that of a referendum where each citizen's vote really does have exactly the same weight as every other citizen. In other words, on the matter of single-issue questions, referendums are about as democratic as it gets. Therefore, to try and undermine or even reverse the results of a referendum is about as undemocratic as it gets.

raspberry-blower · Post by **raspberry-blower** » 13 Oct 2016, 13:35

Even though it hasn't happened yet, "Brexit" is being blamed for an unseemly spat between Tesco and Unilever resulting in many well known brands not being stocked on the shelves of any Tesco store - including Marmite.

Here's something worth watching: The Artist Taxi Driver's response to people losing it over Marmite

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 13 Oct 2016, 17:48

The vote for Brexit is the main cause of the reduction in the value of sterling and consequences of that.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 13 Oct 2016, 20:05

There is a monumental crash coming very shortly worldwide. Brexit is merely a part of that and nothing more. Western economies are all going down the shitter irrespective.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 13 Oct 2016, 20:52

It depends upon what you mean by shortly. From a geological perspective I agree with you, but for a crash to properly happen needs resource shortages. (not just Marmite)

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 13 Oct 2016, 22:23

It would mean only a month before many day to day items could be in short supply. The UK depends on continual imports of enormous quantities. Best go to Felixstowe and see the size of ships unloading, or the channel ports to see the stream of lorries coming this way.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 14 Oct 2016, 09:13

johnhemming2 wrote:The vote for Brexit is the main cause of the reduction in the value of sterling and consequences of that.

I agree, the vote for Brexit is the the main cause of the reduction in the value of sterling and the good consequences that could follow [with competent leadership] will be unreported, after the system rebalances after the transient. I suspect all UK governments and ministers only care about tax haven multinational business.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 14 Oct 2016, 14:04

fuzzy wrote: the good consequences that could follow [with competent leadership] will be unreported,

Depends if you read the Daily Mail or Daily Express really. They would tend to report anything positive about Brexit as their readers would like this.

Potemkin Villager · Post by **Potemkin Villager** » 25 Oct 2016, 10:31

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... age-french

" It was perhaps just une tempête dans un verre d’eau, or a storm in a teacup. When reports emerged that British officials would be forced to negotiate the UK’s divorce with the EU in French, Downing Street was quick to dismiss the idea.

The British government insisted on Friday it would not accept negotiations in French. “We will conduct the negotiations in the way that is going to make sure we get the right deal for the United Kingdom,” Theresa May told journalists after the EU summit."

I would love to know what way that is!

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 25 Oct 2016, 22:19

Leaked recording of Teresa May talking at Goldman Sachs a month before the referendum.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... out-brexit

Speaking at the bank in London on 26 May, the then home secretary appeared to go further than her public remarks to explain more clearly the economic benefits of staying in the EU. She told staff it was time the UK took a lead in Europe, and that she hoped voters would look to the future rather than the past.

In an hour-long session before the City bankers, she also worried about the effect of Brexit on the British economy.

“I think the economic arguments are clear,” she said. “I think being part of a 500-million trading bloc is significant for us. I think, as I was saying to you a little earlier, that one of the issues is that a lot of people will invest here in the UK because it is the UK in Europe.

Post by **adam2** » 25 Oct 2016, 23:20

woodburner wrote:It would mean only a month before many day to day items could be in short supply. The UK depends on continual imports of enormous quantities. Best go to Felixstowe and see the size of ships unloading, or the channel ports to see the stream of lorries coming this way.

As long as a month ?
True perhaps of non essiential goods like consumer electronics, but in the event of a sudden or hard crash, I expect food and fuel to be short within 24 hours.

There might well be some weeks worth of imported foodstuffs and fuels in transit, but I don't expect much of it to reach retail shops or petrol forecourts.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 26 Oct 2016, 08:45

One of the most worrying aspects of the zombie companies who sell us food [in comparison to small pragmatic retailers we would have used in the 50s] is their inflexibility. I am sure we have all seen shops with fridge failure. I remember offering to buy still cold items from chill counters that had just failed. They are not interested, they have rules. If electronic trading fails, they won't take cash from the enterprising customer, they will simply fill skips working unpaid. By the time the average joe grows some enterprise savvy it will be far too late.