UK Politics

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Herzlos**

It's a valid enough assertion, but it's not a good justification for the change. We certainly shouldn't use that change to force the bad thing to happen, on the basis that the bad thing might have happened anyway.

**Stranger83**

Herzlos wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Japanese companies: don't they read history books? Laying down the law to Britain is only likely to make the British people dig in because of past history...

The Japanese companies don't care what the British people do; they just want their interests to be considered.
Plus, we've got a reputation for being stubborn, but have nothing on the Japanese.

Stranger83 wrote:

Because by that logic you could claim that only 34% voted to remain, therefore it's silly to even be considering staying in as clearly 66% don't want to stay in the EU.

We need to just keep perspective; 1/3rd voted out, 1/3rd voted in, 1/3rd didn't vote. That's not a clear mandate either way, and whilst we can assume we know the needs of 2/3rds of the population, some work is required to figure out the best interests of the other 1/3rd.

So this notion of having to leave because 37% of the electorate said so is the only democratic approach is just nonsense. So is the notion that we should stay out because 34% of the electorate said so is just as much nonsense.

The reality is that this is far too close to made a decision on.

By that logic we’d never have a government in the UK.

Normal voter turnout is around 60%, so if we don’t act unless we get 50% of the country vote for something (not 50% of turnout) then we’d never get anything done. The historic principle is that you base any vote on those who turnout and assume that those who didn’t would have voted in broadly the same numbers, to try to change that principle because you didn’t get the result you wanted IS an attempt to muddy the waters, plain and simple.

Edit to add:

Let me explain why – forgetting for a moment that 37% is actually closer to 2/5ths than it is to 1/3rd it is always used as such:

‘Only 1 3rd of the population actually voted to leave, hardly a ringing endorsement’ If we were actually talking simply about the numbers involved it’d be much more acutrate to report:

‘Only 37% voted leave, but only 34% voted remain, we can assume that 29% of people don’t care either way, or certainly don’t care enough to give up 30 minutes of their time to go vote. On the information given it’s therefore acceptable to proceed with the judgement that on average the country wants to leave.’

Both are factual, but one is clearly an attempt to ‘muddy the waters’

**Vaktathi**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

The public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in...

Not wanting to get too far off into the weeds, but it's hard to confidently declare the public wants out of the EU when the referrendum voted "leave" by less than the margin of error of almost all polls in a straight "majority wins" vote, meaning if you held the vote the day before or day after, or had less than 1% of the population woken up on the other side of the bed that morning, its entirely possible that a different result would have been obtained, and that the public is not in anything near concensus on the matter, with an appalling amount of misleading and misinformation on both sides. It would appear that in such a situation, leaving it up to the elected representatives or "political elite", is exactly what those people are there to do, at least to some degree.

Not that I want to disagree too much with the assertion that the upper echelons of politics appear to be disconnected from larger society, they are (and not just in the UK), but with how close the voting was and how confused the issue has become, its hard to cast the situation as one where there is a clear and unambiguous public mandate supported by a clear and undeniable majority of the population vs a political elite united in diametric opposition in defiance of the clear will of the people.

**Whirlwind**

tneva82 wrote:
Any sense? Sense in allowing UK to blackmail EU? "Give us terms WE want or keep paying money indefinitely".

That's no sense.

2 years isn't fixed in that it CANNOT be extended but it requires agreement by all EU countries. Now if there's massive ecological catastrophe in UK then that might garner that extend.

But there HAS to be time line or it will keep draining EU's money for no good and allows UK to have it's cake and eat it too and gives them good blackmailing tool.

I don't really see why the UK would be blackmailing the EU in these circumstances. We would still be paying into the system, accepting free movement and implement EU directives etc (and I doubt the EU really want the UK to leave). In some ways you could argue that the EU has the stronger position because they can just decide that the agreement isn't acceptable and that we should revert back to WTO rules. That's not likely to help anyone least of all the UK with 50% of the exports going to the EU, but it will still hurt the EU. There's likely way more than 2 years worth of material that needs to be sorted out before leaving and forcing an artificial deadline is likely to lead to rushed agreements with most likely something serious being missed that could lead to a bad taste for both sides. For example what happens if an agreement is made but it isn't ratified in the two years by the EU? It would be much more sensible to agree the terms first and how the process would work (given there is no detail in A50) so it can be done in an orderly and managed way. Both groups are also likely to have other things to deal with as well so either it's going to be stop everything or try and find a way to do both the day job and sort out Wrexit.

There's a rational approach and the gung-ho one and it is the latter that both sides seem to prefer at the moment.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vaktathi wrote:

The public want out of the EU, but Parliament wants in...

Not wanting to get too far off into the weeds, but it's hard to confidently declare the public wants out of the EU when the referrendum voted "leave" by less than the margin of error of almost all polls in a straight "majority wins" vote, meaning if you held the vote the day before or day after, or had less than 1% of the population woken up on the other side of the bed that morning, its entirely possible that a different result would have been obtained, and that the public is not in anything near concensus on the matter, with an appalling amount of misleading and misinformation on both sides. It would appear that in such a situation, leaving it up to the elected representatives or "political elite", is exactly what those people are there to do, at least to some degree.

**Herzlos**

The result was 51.8% leave, so it'd take a 0.96% swing to change the result to majority remain. It's about as close to a tie as you can get; bad weather could change the vote by that much.

If it was 60/40 leave I'd agree that it's a fair mandate, but not 52/48, since we still need to include those that can't vote.

**notprop**

I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

**Antario**

Ketara wrote:
It's a strange idea that giving Brexit more time to be negotiated somehow disadvantages the EU. I'd be interested to hear how/why that is?

The article 50 time clause prevents a permanent veto blockade in an effort to extort a favorable settlement by a member that wants to leave. I won't be surprised if the Brexit negotiation period will be prolonged in the future in exchange for a non-inference in EU politics agreement if the economic conditions require both sides to be sensible.

**r_squared**

notprop wrote:
I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

The problem with that analogy is that a footy game doesn't actually matter.
This referendum was far too important to be allowed to be carried out in this way and the result is so close for something so important and so devastating to our economy and culture that actually carrying it out on the basis of this result is a travesty.
To me, it's as close to criminal negligence on the part of Cameron and his cronies as you can get without actually breaking the law.

I would like to see the law changed so that in future no government can enact this sort of utter insanity without a) a proper plan of action, and b) a significant, verifiable mandate requiring a minimum percentage of popular support from the people.

The fact that we are being forced to carry this out now is a repugnant, aberration and should never be allowed to be repeated.

**Whirlwind**

notprop wrote:

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

But then what about those people that the decision equally (if not more so impacts on) so EU residents in the UK (and the argument doesn't stand up to they shouldn't have been allowed to vote when commonwealth citizens could); UK long term residents not living in the UK without a current registered UK address and the 16-18 year olds? None of these were allowed a vote.

**Vaktathi**

notprop wrote:
I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

football is a game with a discrete score, defined rules, and preset expectations, none if which resembles a major vote on geopolitics. The analogy fails in this regard.

When a vote to make a massive change to a nations political relationship with her largest and nearest partners hinges on a margin thinner than the predictive error, its hard to seriously call that a Mandate, its about as close to a coin flip as you can get, with all the error and whimsy involved in that as one likes. Political mandates do not spring from coin tosses.

**Mario**

Kilkrazy wrote:

Equally, the EU is tensioning the situation up by refusing to negotiate before the Article 50 is activated. They are being rather petty, IMO. The UK won't vanish from the west of France and Holland because of Brexit, so there needs to be some resolution of the situation. Of course they have taken this position because any example of a smoothly negotiated Brexit might encourage a Frexit and a Dexit and Nexit.

Oh please, it was Cameron who wanted to win an election and carelessly offered the referendum to win votes. Then he resigned anyways (a textbook pyrrhic victory). On top of that there seems to have been no plan for the possible separation at all from the UK exit advocates. The EU's stance is that you don't just give in to a petulant little tantrum and wait for the UK to get things in order and deal with the situation. If the UK really wants out then fine but don't complain that others don't bend over backwards to appease all the UK's wishes (and preemptively solve the UK's problems) just because the UK thought it would be a good idea to do that referendum YOLO style.

**Stranger83**

r_squared wrote:
notprop wrote:
I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

The problem with that analogy is that a footy game doesn't actually matter.
This referendum was far too important to be allowed to be carried out in this way and the result is so close for something so important and so devastating to our economy and culture that actually carrying it out on the basis of this result is a travesty.
To me, it's as close to criminal negligence on the part of Cameron and his cronies as you can get without actually breaking the law.

I would like to see the law changed so that in future no government can enact this sort of utter insanity without a) a proper plan of action, and b) a significant, verifiable mandate requiring a minimum percentage of popular support from the people.

The fact that we are being forced to carry this out now is a repugnant, aberration and should never be allowed to be repeated.

A minimum percentage of the population? What would that be exactly?

I'm just interested as 14% voted UKIP at the last election, and 52% voted leave, presumably you don't think either of these numbers meet your 'minimum' threshold.

Look DC put the referendum in his manifesto, I know at least 10 people who spent their life voting 'anyone but tory' who switched to voting tory precisely because of this promise - it's probably why a deeply unpopular tory government that couldn't even win a majority the first time round managed to get a majority the second so to claim there is no mandate for this is just plain wrong

As for the choice being parliaments, they already had a vote on that - they agreed to give the choice to the people and to enact our wishes, the fact we voted different to how they wanted changes nothing.

**notprop**

Vaktathi wrote:
notprop wrote:
I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?
football is a game with a discrete score, defined rules, and preset expectations, none if which resembles a major vote on geopolitics. The analogy fails in this regard.

When a vote to make a massive change to a nations political relationship with her largest and nearest partners hinges on a margin thinner than the predictive error, its hard to seriously call that a Mandate, its about as close to a coin flip as you can get, with all the error and whimsy involved in that as one likes. Political mandates do not spring from coin tosses.

Rubbish, both have defined criteria.

Saying it was close changes nothing.

**r_squared**

Stranger83 wrote:
r_squared wrote:
notprop wrote:
I think we can file that argument in the woulda/coulda/shoulda bin.

The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

The mandate is clear.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

The problem with that analogy is that a footy game doesn't actually matter.
This referendum was far too important to be allowed to be carried out in this way and the result is so close for something so important and so devastating to our economy and culture that actually carrying it out on the basis of this result is a travesty.
To me, it's as close to criminal negligence on the part of Cameron and his cronies as you can get without actually breaking the law.

I would like to see the law changed so that in future no government can enact this sort of utter insanity without a) a proper plan of action, and b) a significant, verifiable mandate requiring a minimum percentage of popular support from the people.

The fact that we are being forced to carry this out now is a repugnant, aberration and should never be allowed to be repeated.

A minimum percentage of the population? What would that be exactly?

I'm just interested as 14% voted UKIP at the last election, and 52% voted leave, presumably you don't think either of these numbers meet your 'minimum' threshold.

Look DC put the referendum in his manifesto, I know at least 10 people who spent their life voting 'anyone but tory' who switched to voting tory precisely because of this promise - it's probably why a deeply unpopular tory government that couldn't even win a majority the first time round managed to get a majority the second so to claim there is no mandate for this is just plain wrong

As for the choice being parliaments, they already had a vote on that - they agreed to give the choice to the people and to enact our wishes, the fact we voted different to how they wanted changes nothing.

So on the basis of 10 people you know, and "probably" why the tories got voted in we shouldn't even discuss the idea that we should expect a minimum turnout and a clear pre-set majority? I remember the arguments being touted for this sort of thing for GEs to force politicians to engage with the population to galvanise actual support rather than rely on a minority.
The point was made earlier about statistical error, and how if the referendum was run on a different day, in different weather we'd probably get a different result, well setting minimums of attendance and margins eliminates that, it also eliminates opposition and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The reason everyone is so salty, is because it is not clear, it's barely a mandate, and it's hugely damaging with no effort being put in for any safe guards.

Besides, to say that the EU referendum was a galvanising factor in the election of the current govt is speculation at best, it might have been at the forefront of the mind of your apparent "10 friends", but I don't remember it being that big a deal for anyone else apart from Farage and his cronies. In fact I know of at least 2 people who voted Tory to keep UKIP out, knowing that the Govt was pro-EU and to stop the support for a detestable slide to far right politics based on immigration, the EU referendum was the least of their worries compared to the potential of having to suffer one of Nigel's lot in government.

**Stranger83**

r_squared wrote:

So on the basis of 10 people you know, and "probably" why the tories got voted in we shouldn't even discuss the idea that we should expect a minimum turnout and a clear pre-set majority?

I never said that - I simply pointed out that there was a mandate for the referendum, to claim otherwise is false. As for a minimum turnout, the referendum had the largest turnout of any election in decades - how big a turnout do you anticipate is needed before something becomes valid? Should we not have a government right now because the turnout to that was less than the turnout to the referendum?

r_squared wrote:

I remember the arguments being touted for this sort of thing for GEs to force politicians to engage with the population to galvanise actual support rather than rely on a minority.
The point was made earlier about statistical error, and how if the referendum was run on a different day, in different weather we'd probably get a different result, well setting minimums of attendance and margins eliminates that, it also eliminates opposition and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The reason everyone is so salty, is because it is not clear, it's barely a mandate, and it's hugely damaging with no effort being put in for any safe guards.

And my question was who decides what the minimum is? 14% of the population voted UKIP, I think its fair to say they wanted a referendum. On top of that there are a significant portion of the population who clearly wanted out, unless your somehow claiming that the other 38% who voted out on the day would have changed their mind on any other day. My point is you stated:

r_squared wrote:

I would like to see the law changed so that in future no government can enact this sort of utter insanity without ... b) a significant, verifiable mandate requiring a minimum percentage of popular support from the people.

But surely, even accounting for a margin of error there were a significant percentage of popular support for the referendum - therefore it should have been held even by your own ruling

r_squared wrote:

Besides, to say that the EU referendum was a galvanising factor in the election of the current govt is speculation at best, it might have been at the forefront of the mind of your apparent "10 friends", but I don't remember it being that big a deal for anyone else apart from Farage and his cronies. In fact I know of at least 2 people who voted Tory to keep UKIP out, knowing that the Govt was pro-EU and to stop the support for a detestable slide to far right politics based on immigration, the EU referendum was the least of their worries compared to the potential of having to suffer one of Nigel's lot in government.

If your friends voted tory to keep UKIP out then they must be fools, unless your friends happen to live in Carswells or Farages seat that would have never have happened anyway. I never said it was the only factor, simply that it was part of it, it was in the manifesto - everyone knew it was going to happen with a tory government and to claim there was no mandate is simply not true.

EDIT to fix quotes

**r_squared**

Considering I live in Boston, UKIP are a credible threat to the electorate. It was absolutely not foolish to vote against UKIP in this area, I fully support them in their decision, and they most certainly aren't fools.

Besides the Tories said a lot of things in their manifesto, and this is the one they choose to enforce, to the detriment of the country? To the polarisation of the electorate, the creation of tension and widespread anger, and flying in the face of a huge number of the population as well as 2 member nations of our union?
They put party before country, arrogantly gambled and failed. I would like to see measures put in place to ensure that a referendum cannot be used as a political band aid to a party again, and that our parliamentary system retains primacy, even if that means a future referendum to rejoin the EU would be more difficult.

**Stranger83**

r_squared wrote:
Considering I live in Boston, UKIP are a credible threat to the electorate. It was absolutely not foolish to vote against UKIP in this area, I fully support them in their decision, and they most certainly aren't fools.

Besides the Tories said a lot of things in their manifesto, and this is the one they choose to enforce, to the detriment of the country? To the polarisation of the electorate, the creation of tension and widespread anger, and flying in the face of a huge number of the population as well as 2 member nations of our union?
They put party before country, arrogantly gambled and failed. I would like to see measures put in place to ensure that a referendum cannot be used as a political band aid to a party again, and that our parliamentary system retains primacy, even if that means a future referendum to rejoin the EU would be more difficult.

Firstly I disagree with the phrase 'threat to the electorate' - unless you are somehow saying UKIP are going to attack the population of Boston, however a quick check of the results shows they did OK in Boston, I still highly doubt they would have ever of won but I'll concede the point.

As for the Tories said a lot of things in the manifesto - yes they did, as far as I can see they were sticking to all of them as much as parliament let them so I'm not entirely sure what your point there is?

They put party before country because they did as agreed by Parliament and held a referendum? Or maybe they are putting party before country because they are doing what the country voted for? Please explain how doing what was agreed by Parliament and voted for by the country is putting party before country?

Flying in the face of a he part of the population, maybe but NOT going through with it would be flying in the face of MORE of the population and ignoring the wishes of 2 member nations of our Union (one of which is significantly larger than the other three).

Parliamentary system retains primacy - fair enough, they all agreed to give the public the choice and enact the public will. Until Government decides to give them another choice the way our Parliament system is setup that we work to that principle, ,therefore we ARE working fully within the remit of our parliamentary system.

**Herzlos**

notprop wrote:
The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

Or, potentially, those that couldn't vote due to age, were more likely to vote In.

The mandate is clear.

The mandate couldn't be any less clear. If you used a survey result of 51.8/48.2 in any academic or business proposal as anything other than inconclusive you'd be laughed out of the room. You wouldn't use a result like that to decide which product to promote, or to claim that it's clear that toddlers prefer bananas to apples. There's no fething way you should use the same results to decide on how an economy should run.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

It's a poor analogy, because it doesn't reflect how close it was. It'd be like an American Football game where team A won by 52 to 48. Sure, they won, but the coach would be telling them to get their act together because they almost lost (a single touchdown/conversion would have changed the game). They'd get shot down in flames if they said in the post game interviews that it was a clear victory.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:

A minimum percentage of the population? What would that be exactly?

A lead needs to be by more than a statistical error, so I'd say at least 60/40 to be considered a clear mandate. Or at a push 55/45 (though when the indyref went that way I felt it was too close, too). Less than 1% swing is just not clear enough to base any rational decision on.

I'm just interested as 14% voted UKIP at the last election, and 52% voted leave, presumably you don't think either of these numbers meet your 'minimum' threshold.

Would you make a major lifestyle choice if the result was 52% in favour? Would you call that a clear decision?

I don't know what the relevance of the UKIPs 14% is here, except that it implies that 86% of the electorate didn't think leaving the EU was the critical election point. And I've already stated several times that 51.8% in favour is within an error margin of being dead even.

I think a lot of this debate over what we should do is because the result was so close. If there was a clear majority (i.e. enough that it wouldn't likely be skewed if it was run again, or on a different date) then a lot of Remainers would accept the decision as a majority one and move on. But since there's no way you can claim it's a clear majority, it feels like we're running with it any despite the result rather than because of the result.

**reds8n**

https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/11/economist-explains-why-brexiters-claim-that-germany-wont-sacrifice-uk-trade-over-the-eu-is-rubbish/

One key Brexit claim has always been that Britain will get a good deal out of Brexit negotiations because big countries like Germany won’t want to sacrifice trade with the UK.

The UK is easily Germany’s best export market: it had a $56 billion trade surplus with the UK last year (i.e. the value of exports minus imports). That’s almost a third of Germany’s trade surplus with the EU.

So why would they want to sacrifice that surplus in order to give the UK a bloody nose for leaving the EU – Brexiters argue.

During the Referendum campaign for example, Boris Johnson said it would be “insane” for Germany to put up trade tariffs against the UK.

But the claim is rubbish, as one German economist pointed out on Twitter today.

This is what he went on to say

Münchau asks: “Do you honestly think #GER would sacrifice a 56bn trade surplus with UK for anything as lofty as a principled position?”
First, a surplus is really not that interesting: car exporter to UK does not care if other parts of the economy do not import as much.
And even in negotiations, it does not matter: the econ goal is not a trade surplus, but to maximise consumption, investment, prod. growth.
If the UK threatens to bloc EU imports, UK consumers will suffer as much/more (ie the main source of growth in UK over last 3 years).
Second, lets have a look at what kind of exports go from Germany to the UK (in % of total GER exports to the UK).

Most is high-end manufacturing, the type that is less price sensitive. So the pain/downside for GER exporters will be manageable.
Don’t take it from me. Take it from the exporters themselves who argued for a tough stance vis-a-vis the UK.

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/wirtschaft/wirtschaftspolitik/iw-empfehlungen-fuer-umgang-mit-brexit-14475175.html

“The UK is important market for GER car ind, but cohesion of EU27 & single market more important for us.” Wissman, chief GER car lobbyist.
Hold on, isn’t GER that geo-economic power that builds econ ties and lets its export interests dictate its foreign policy? Not so fast.
GER does focus on econ of geopolitics if 1) GER is not key to that geopol issue, and/or 2) if it’s not at core of GER geopol interests.
China is good example, where GER does not take the lead, but focuses on its econ interests on the back of/free-riding on US geopol work.
So what is the core of Germany’s core geopolitical interests? That’s right, the EU.
Russia threatened the EU’s security, and Germany pushed for sanctions (despite strong GER commercial interests & domestic resistance).
Brexit in Germany’s view is geopolitical vandalism, and GER core interest is now to strengthen Europe and the EU.
Main partner of #Germany in Europe is France (even more so now than before). So GER will keep French interests at top of its list.
In sum when it comes to Germany’s core geopolitical interests, like the stability of the EU, commercial interests take a back seat.

**Stranger83**

Herzlos wrote:
notprop wrote:
The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

Or, potentially, those that couldn't vote due to age, were more likely to vote In.

The mandate is clear.

The mandate couldn't be any less clear. If you used a survey result of 51.8/48.2 in any academic or business proposal as anything other than inconclusive you'd be laughed out of the room. You wouldn't use a result like that to decide which product to promote, or to claim that it's clear that toddlers prefer bananas to apples. There's no fething way you should use the same results to decide on how an economy should run.

What next? Winning by one goal is as close to a draw as you will get; do you want to restage all footy games too?

It's a poor analogy, because it doesn't reflect how close it was. It'd be like an American Football game where team A won by 52 to 48. Sure, they won, but the coach would be telling them to get their act together because they almost lost (a single touchdown/conversion would have changed the game). They'd get shot down in flames if they said in the post game interviews that it was a clear victory.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:

A minimum percentage of the population? What would that be exactly?

A lead needs to be by more than a statistical error, so I'd say at least 60/40 to be considered a clear mandate. Or at a push 55/45 (though when the indyref went that way I felt it was too close, too). Less than 1% swing is just not clear enough to base any rational decision on.

I'm just interested as 14% voted UKIP at the last election, and 52% voted leave, presumably you don't think either of these numbers meet your 'minimum' threshold.

Would you make a major lifestyle choice if the result was 52% in favour? Would you call that a clear decision?

I don't know what the relevance of the UKIPs 14% is here, except that it implies that 86% of the electorate didn't think leaving the EU was the critical election point. And I've already stated several times that 51.8% in favour is within an error margin of being dead even.

I think a lot of this debate over what we should do is because the result was so close. If there was a clear majority (i.e. enough that it wouldn't likely be skewed if it was run again, or on a different date) then a lot of Remainers would accept the decision as a majority one and move on. But since there's no way you can claim it's a clear majority, it feels like we're running with it any despite the result rather than because of the result.

What’s your solution then?

We cannot stay in the EU because that was 48% of the vote, not only still within your margin of error but actually less than those who voted to leave. I’m actually curious on what you think we should do?

Maybe we should keep holding the referendum ad infinitum – cause that certainly wouldn’t lead to more problems than we have now.

Look, we set the rule of the referendum before hand, this was debated, agreed and voted on by Parliament who were elected by the people – maybe it’s not a clear majority but it certainly IS a majority and I fail to see what other option there is since we cannot stay in because there is no clear mandate for that either.

Incidentally would I make a major lifestyle choice based on 52%? Well if I HAD to go one or the other and one was 52% and one was 48% you can be sure I’d choose the 52% option.

**notprop**

Herzlos wrote:
notprop wrote:
The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

Or, potentially, those that couldn't vote due to age, were more likely to vote In.

The mandate is clear.

The mandate couldn't be any less clear. If you used a survey result of 51.8/48.2 in any academic or business proposal as anything other than inconclusive you'd be laughed out of the room. You wouldn't use a result like that to decide which product to promote, or to claim that it's clear that toddlers prefer bananas to apples. There's no fething way you should use the same results to decide on how an economy should run.

You see the bit where one number is clearly bigger than the other.......

And the referendum was on sovereignty not how the economy is run.

**Herzlos**

Stranger83 wrote:

What’s your solution then?

That it goes to parliament, who we elected to represent us, to decide what to do based on additional factors (like investigative reports, consultations).

Incidentally would I make a major lifestyle choice based on 52%? Well if I HAD to go one or the other and one was 52% and one was 48% you can be sure I’d choose the 52% option.

Based soley on the number?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:

You see the bit where one number is clearly bigger than the other.......

So you'd have accepted a 50.01% vote for Remain as a clear mandate to remain?

One number being bigger than the other, within a margin of statistical error, just isn't good enough to make such drastic decisions. It's frankly insane. Like I said, you wouldn't use a result that close to decide to stock Pepsi over Coke in a cafe, so why would you use it to determine what changes you'd make to an economic and political partnership?

And the referendum was on sovereignty not how the economy is run.

And that's part of the problem. Sovereignty wasn't on the ballot. We still can't decide what the referendum was actually about, let alone what the outcome should be.
It's disingenuous to think that leaving the EU wouldn't have some effect on the economy and how it runs.

**Stranger83**

Herzlos wrote:
Stranger83 wrote:

What’s your solution then?

That it goes to parliament, who we elected to represent us, to decide what to do based on additional factors (like investigative reports, consultations).

Incidentally would I make a major lifestyle choice based on 52%? Well if I HAD to go one or the other and one was 52% and one was 48% you can be sure I’d choose the 52% option.

Based soley on the number?
[\quote]

It’s been to parliament – they said they would enact whatever we voted for, so by your own logic we should get on with leaving.

And as for solely on the number – if that is the only information I have to base the decision on then yes, would you choose the 48% if you have no other information to go on?

Herzlos wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

notprop wrote:

You see the bit where one number is clearly bigger than the other.......

So you'd have accepted a 50.01% vote for Remain as a clear mandate to remain?

One number being bigger than the other, within a margin of statistical error, just isn't good enough to make such drastic decisions. It's frankly insane. Like I said, you wouldn't use a result that close to decide to stock Pepsi over Coke in a cafe, so why would you use it to determine what changes you'd make to an economic and political partnership?

And the referendum was on sovereignty not how the economy is run.

And that's part of the problem. Sovereignty wasn't on the ballot. We still can't decide what the referendum was actually about, let alone what the outcome should be.
It's disingenuous to think that leaving the EU wouldn't have some effect on the economy and how it runs.

So your solution is that since 51.8% isn’t a clear mandate we should take the 48.2% option instead?

**Herzlos**

Stranger83 wrote:

It’s been to parliament – they said they would enact whatever we voted for, so by your own logic we should get on with leaving.

Except it was and always has been a non-binding referendum.

Stranger83 wrote:

And as for solely on the number – if that is the only information I have to base the decision on then yes, would you choose the 48% if you have no other information to go on?

If I had to chose based on the number alone, I'd take the 52%, but I'd moan about it being a stupid choice based on unreliable information.

Stranger83 wrote:
So your solution is that since 51.8% isn’t a clear mandate we should take the 48.2% option instead?

No. My solution is that when the poll isn't clear enough, we look for other information to base our results in, and then make an informed decision. Taking the view that "well, a statistically insignificant number more voted for A than B so we should blindly do A, is fething stupid. Like I've said, it'd be laughed out of business or academia, and the standards should be even higher for government.

Though to be honest, I'd also be for a system that had a slightly higher bar for changing the status quo, than for leaving things as they are.

**A Town Called Malus**

notprop wrote:
Herzlos wrote:
notprop wrote:
The vote was held, those that wanted to vote, voted. Those that didn't care to vote, didn't. Frankly most of those that didn't vote are more likely to be lower/working class ne'er do wells anyway, i.e. more likely to vote out anyway.

Or, potentially, those that couldn't vote due to age, were more likely to vote In.

The mandate is clear.

The mandate couldn't be any less clear. If you used a survey result of 51.8/48.2 in any academic or business proposal as anything other than inconclusive you'd be laughed out of the room. You wouldn't use a result like that to decide which product to promote, or to claim that it's clear that toddlers prefer bananas to apples. There's no fething way you should use the same results to decide on how an economy should run.

You see the bit where one number is clearly bigger than the other.......

And the referendum was on sovereignty not how the economy is run.

That's funny, I thought it was on EU membership which has quite a bit to do with how the economy is run.

**Stranger83**

Herzlos wrote:
Stranger83 wrote:

It’s been to parliament – they said they would enact whatever we voted for, so by your own logic we should get on with leaving.

Except it was and always has been a non-binding referendum.

It has, but Parliament did say they would enact the will of the people, regardless of if it is binding or not

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

And as for solely on the number – if that is the only information I have to base the decision on then yes, would you choose the 48% if you have no other information to go on?

If I had to chose based on the number alone, I'd take the 52%, but I'd moan about it being a stupid choice based on unreliable information.

I fully agree, but you’re the one who setup the scenario not me

Herzlos wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:
So your solution is that since 51.8% isn’t a clear mandate we should take the 48.2% option instead?

No. My solution is that when the poll isn't clear enough, we look for other information to base our results in, and then make an informed decision. Taking the view that "well, a statistically insignificant number more voted for A than B so we should blindly do A, is fething stupid. Like I've said, it'd be laughed out of business or academia, and the standards should be even higher for government.

And what other information would that be? I think it was all covered pretty well in the referendum, people made the choice that leaving the EU was worth the risk to the economy. And again, you idea seems to be that 51.8% isn’t a clear mandate so we should go with the 48.2% option instead- I think you’d find that that idea is the one that would be laughed out of business.

Herzlos wrote:

Though to be honest, I'd also be for a system that had a slightly higher bar for changing the status quo, than for leaving things as they are.

A slightly higher bar? We had a manifesto commitment as part of the general election, then a vote in parliament, then a free election on the process with everyone knowing what the rules would be, how high a bar would you like it to be?

EDIT, fixing quotes again

**Kilkrazy**

The actual question was should the UK leave the EU or remain within it.

The answers people gave depended on whatever they wanted to read into the question.

I think it's pretty obvious that Remainers were more concerned about the economy than immigration, and Leavers were of the opposite opinion.

As for the referendum being a mandate, May's theory is that the Tory election victory validated the manifesto which included the promise of a referendum, therefore the referendum gives her a mandate even though referendums are not binding in the UK constitution.

**Herzlos**

Yeah, my quoting has gone to hell.

Stranger83 wrote:

It has, but Parliament did say they would enact the will of the people, regardless of if it is binding or not

I'm always keen to note the distinction between what the government says, and what the government does. I wouldn't trust Cameron to tell me if it was raining outside.
Government said "We'll do the thing", Government does "make the thing optional".

Stranger83 wrote:

I fully agree, but you’re the one who setup the scenario not me

Agreed, it was a bad example on my part. Apologies.

Stranger83 wrote:

And what other information would that be? I think it was all covered pretty well in the referendum, people made the choice that leaving the EU was worth the risk to the economy. And again, you idea seems to be that 51.8% isn’t a clear mandate so we should go with the 48.2% option instead- I think you’d find that that idea is the one that would be laughed out of business.

We could always try asking the experts, or trying to find out what's in the best interests of the 29% that didn't vote for whatever reason.

I have never said we should go with the 48.2% option. I've said that 51.8% isn't statistically significant enough to gain any information for it, and we need to find more information in order to make a rational decision. Of course, we should have been clear on the outcome requirements before we started.

Being somewhat contradictory, I'd say that with no additional information, 51.8% isn't a high enough bar for making such a massive change, just because of the logistics of the change, in which case I would recommend the 48.2% option.

Stranger83 wrote:

A slightly higher bar? We had a manifesto commitment as part of the general election, then a vote in parliament, then a free election on the process with everyone knowing what the rules would be, how high a bar would you like it to be?

I'd like the result to be based on more than a statistically irrelevant difference. Either a larger margin, or some further debate from the representatives. Having a significant majority in the referendum OR an insignificant majority in the referendum followed by parliamentary approval would be sufficient for me. Currently we've got an insignificant referendum majority and no parliamentary discussion about even what the details are going to be.

Edit: Fething quotes.

**notprop**

Herzlos wrote:

notprop wrote:

You see the bit where one number is clearly bigger than the other.......

So you'd have accepted a 50.01% vote for Remain as a clear mandate to remain?

One number being bigger than the other, within a margin of statistical error, just isn't good enough to make such drastic decisions. It's frankly insane. Like I said, you wouldn't use a result that close to decide to stock Pepsi over Coke in a cafe, so why would you use it to determine what changes you'd make to an economic and political partnership?

What statistical error? It is not a opinion poll extrapolated to cover a greater population, It was a straight forward count.

I would suggest (from experience) that quite a few decisions are made on margins of far less that 3.6% - incremental/marginal improvement is a thing.

And why would you make an ~~economic~~ political decision based on this margin; because that was the method chosen by Parliament.

And the referendum was on sovereignty not how the economy is run.

And that's part of the problem. Sovereignty wasn't on the ballot. We still can't decide what the referendum was actually about, let alone what the outcome should be.
It's disingenuous to think that leaving the EU wouldn't have some effect on the economy and how it runs.

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

It seems pretty clear to me.

Any decision has economic effects but that's not a reason to not make decisions.

**Herzlos**

notprop wrote:

What statistical error? It is not a opinion poll extrapolated to cover a greater population, It was a straight forward count.

And opinion polls always come with a statistical error margin, because the opinions recorded as subject to fluctuation and interference. People may change their vote based on mood, or news, or decide/be unable to vote for some reason (like being late home from work, or having to clean up baby vomit). You'd find that if you ran the same referendum on 5 concurrent days, you'd get 5 different results, within some error margin.

I would suggest (from experience) that quite a few decisions are made on margins of far less that 3.6% - incremental/marginal improvement is a thing.

But it's not a 3.6% margin, it'd only take a 1.86% reduction in the Leave vote to change the result to a Remain.

notprop wrote:

‘Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?’

It seems pretty clear to me.

Any decision has economic effects but that's not a reason to not make decisions.

Indeed it's pretty clear, it's got nothing to do with sovereignty. Because it didn't ask that.

The issue is that everyone has a different opinion on what leaving the European Union means, and voted based on that understanding.