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.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Canada just signed a trade deal with the EU and to the best of my knowledge, it doesn't include free movement of people.

If Canada can do it with the EU, then so can Britain.

A trade deal yes. A free trade deal not quite.

For example it does not include passporting rights that will be critical to British banking sector, it also keeps tariffs and quotas for about 2% of products and, consequentially the freedom of movement clauses are minor (mostly about business executives, education professionals etc)

Oh, and it took 7 years to work out, in a rather peaceful political environment with a lot of positive will.

Stranger83 wrote:

I do get your point that 51.2% is ‘with the margin of error’ but you also need to look at the size of the sample – it was circa 33 million people asked, the margin of error goes down with the proportion of people asked.

Again, I do get your point, I just don’t think that the correct solution to ‘the mandate to leave isn’t clear as it was 51.8%’ is ‘so lets go with the 48.2% option instead’

Yes, as part of the negotiation we need to keep in mind that there is a significant portion of the population that voted to stay, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the wishes of the larger portion who voted to leave.

There's a bit of confusion here about what is meant by statistical error. Generally (and it happens a lot) results are provided either as an average or median (most common) value only. With any data set there is however always an error and you can't get away from it. As such the average/median value only gives a rough indicator of the region that the result lies in. The error on the data is what defines where the actual result lies and can be called 'sigma' in certain circles. In mathematical terms a 1 sigma result means that the probability of the value being between two values has is 68% (i.e. there is one in three chance of being outside this range). A 2 sigma result (i.e. double the error) means that you there is a 95% chance the value lies within double these values (i.e. 1/20 chance of being outside this value range) and a 3 sigma result means that there is 99.7% chance that the value is between triple these values (so 3 in a thousand chance the result lies outside this range). In science circles 3 sigma is usually the lowest that constitutes a result and in particle physics its more like 5 sigma is the minimum (that means there is a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is outside this range).

So lets look at an example - say you took a sample of something and got a median/average result of 60 and calculated an error of +/-2. What this means is that the *true* result lies anywhere between:-
58 to 62 with a 1 sigma confidence (i.e. there is only a 2/3 chance that your result lies in this range)
56 to 64 with a 2 sigma confidence (i.e. there is a 19/20 chance that your result lies in this range)
54 to 66 with a 3 sigma confidence (i.e. there is a 3/1000 chance the results lies in this range)

You can actually test this yourself. Take a pencil and snap it in half. Now take a school ruler (the ones ruled to 1mm) and ask 10 people to measure the same half of pencil to 0.1mm independently. You will get a variety of results, none of them are 'wrong' by the individuals measurement (the differences being eyes, personal judgement and so on) but you would calculate the actual result by taking the average of all the results. The average is highly unlikely to meet any of the results reported by any of the individuals but you would take the average as the *true* result. But this isn't correct - the average just gives you a starting point for your errors and all you can actually say is the result is between two values within the stated error (noting that still only gives you a 68% chance that it actually is).

The same goes for the referendum. It was one sample, if you took the referendum and ran it again the next day you would get a different result and the day after that and so on. This is because it is impossible to measure any data so there is no error, there is always something that changes, whether that is people dying from one day to the next, being abroad, getting out of bed on the other side, ticking the wrong box, being miscounted and so on. To reduce the errors you need to make more samples which isn't really practical for a referendum to repeat it a dozen times over two weeks (which is why people take poll of polls during elections because that reduces the error on the poll data).

Hence when people say 51.8% of people voted to Leave that's not strictly correct because it is arbitrarily assuming there is no error in the data which is impossible.

If we assume an error of 1.0% on the results then the correct way of reporting the result, assuming a 3 sigma result, would be that that there was "99.7% probability that the referendum results lies somewhere between the values of 48.8% and 54.8%"
(I don't know the actual error but it would be largish given only one sample). In essence the *true* result could either be Leave or Remain; we simply don't have enough data to know - this is what is meant when we talk about 'within the statistical error'.

This actually applies to any figure you are presented in the news/papers/at the cafeteria. Without the error data it is actually very hard to draw any conclusions from what you are told and the press really should report this better. Occasionally they do but it is usually because they are quoting from a source then from any real understanding is my impression.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
I don't known what you're arguing for. Are you saying children should have a vote too? Its the responsibility of parents to represent their children's interests, and should vote accordingly.

While I agree with you on that point, it should be borne in mind that it is the responsibility of members of parliament to represent their constituencies interests, and should vote accordingly.

Only they are not being allowed to.

However I am not interested in the statistical error margin of the referendum, or people who didn't bother to vote, or whatever. I think that is all irrelevant and water under the bridge.

The point is this:

A Leave vote actually is pretty meaningless in itself because there is a wide variation of possible situations for the UK after Leaving. In other words, no-one knew what Leave meant in practical terms.

Some Leave voters might want a situation like North Korea's (to make a very extreme example) while others might want a situation like Norway's.

The most likely position probably is close to the one that Canada and the EU now are in -- close trade links without close movement of people links -- no EU fees paid by Canada, and no involvement of Canada in the EU decision making process -- but for the UK, the essential pass-porting rights for our service sector. We don't know how long that will take to achieve, if it can be done at all.

At any rate, until the government and the EU have worked our a set of viable options for the post-Brexit situation, the Leave voter doesn't really know what he was voting for. The Remain voter, while accepting that Brexit has to happen, would prefer the softest version of Brexit, which is the Norway scenario, practically by definition.

Bear in mind, too, that Remain voters' democratic rights and interests in the post-Brexit scenario have not been removed by the referendum result.

For both groups of voters, they deserve the chance to vote on the actual deal that is worked out. It is possible that the post-Brexit situation that becomes most likely to eventuate would not be acceptable to a majority of the voters.

At any rate, a democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy.

I've been into the Silver market for a year or so but stopped buying early this year when prices started shooting up. The reason I mention this is that one of the YouTube channels I subscribe to, Illuminati Silver, made a video today about the UK's economic future. Specifically, inflation. It's about four minutes and I'd like to see what you guys have to say on the subject.

A report was released recently by an UK economic think tank predicting 4% inflation by the end of next year.

This is certainly not unlikely considering the sharp fall in the value of the GBP having made imports and fuel more expensive.

 Whirlwind wrote:

Stranger83 wrote:

I do get your point that 51.2% is ‘with the margin of error’ but you also need to look at the size of the sample – it was circa 33 million people asked, the margin of error goes down with the proportion of people asked.

Again, I do get your point, I just don’t think that the correct solution to ‘the mandate to leave isn’t clear as it was 51.8%’ is ‘so lets go with the 48.2% option instead’

Yes, as part of the negotiation we need to keep in mind that there is a significant portion of the population that voted to stay, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the wishes of the larger portion who voted to leave.

There's a bit of confusion here about what is meant by statistical error. Generally (and it happens a lot) results are provided either as an average or median (most common) value only. With any data set there is however always an error and you can't get away from it. As such the average/median value only gives a rough indicator of the region that the result lies in. The error on the data is what defines where the actual result lies and can be called 'sigma' in certain circles. In mathematical terms a 1 sigma result means that the probability of the value being between two values has is 68% (i.e. there is one in three chance of being outside this range). A 2 sigma result (i.e. double the error) means that you there is a 95% chance the value lies within double these values (i.e. 1/20 chance of being outside this value range) and a 3 sigma result means that there is 99.7% chance that the value is between triple these values (so 3 in a thousand chance the result lies outside this range). In science circles 3 sigma is usually the lowest that constitutes a result and in particle physics its more like 5 sigma is the minimum (that means there is a 1 in 3.5 million chance that the result is outside this range).

So lets look at an example - say you took a sample of something and got a median/average result of 60 and calculated an error of +/-2. What this means is that the *true* result lies anywhere between:-
58 to 62 with a 1 sigma confidence (i.e. there is only a 2/3 chance that your result lies in this range)
56 to 64 with a 2 sigma confidence (i.e. there is a 19/20 chance that your result lies in this range)
54 to 66 with a 3 sigma confidence (i.e. there is a 3/1000 chance the results lies in this range)

You can actually test this yourself. Take a pencil and snap it in half. Now take a school ruler (the ones ruled to 1mm) and ask 10 people to measure the same half of pencil to 0.1mm independently. You will get a variety of results, none of them are 'wrong' by the individuals measurement (the differences being eyes, personal judgement and so on) but you would calculate the actual result by taking the average of all the results. The average is highly unlikely to meet any of the results reported by any of the individuals but you would take the average as the *true* result. But this isn't correct - the average just gives you a starting point for your errors and all you can actually say is the result is between two values within the stated error (noting that still only gives you a 68% chance that it actually is).

The same goes for the referendum. It was one sample, if you took the referendum and ran it again the next day you would get a different result and the day after that and so on. This is because it is impossible to measure any data so there is no error, there is always something that changes, whether that is people dying from one day to the next, being abroad, getting out of bed on the other side, ticking the wrong box, being miscounted and so on. To reduce the errors you need to make more samples which isn't really practical for a referendum to repeat it a dozen times over two weeks (which is why people take poll of polls during elections because that reduces the error on the poll data).

Hence when people say 51.8% of people voted to Leave that's not strictly correct because it is arbitrarily assuming there is no error in the data which is impossible.

If we assume an error of 1.0% on the results then the correct way of reporting the result, assuming a 3 sigma result, would be that that there was "99.7% probability that the referendum results lies somewhere between the values of 48.8% and 54.8%"
(I don't know the actual error but it would be largish given only one sample). In essence the *true* result could either be Leave or Remain; we simply don't have enough data to know - this is what is meant when we talk about 'within the statistical error'.

This actually applies to any figure you are presented in the news/papers/at the cafeteria. Without the error data it is actually very hard to draw any conclusions from what you are told and the press really should report this better. Occasionally they do but it is usually because they are quoting from a source then from any real understanding is my impression.

First of all 51.8% is 'strictly correct' regardless of what you say because 51.8% was the result of the referendum, and everyone except a few of the hard wing remainers accepts this.

Secondly, whilst you will get some variation on snapping a pencil and measuring the two halves due to different rulers being used and differences in peoples eye (or even the angle that you hold the pencil when you measure it) NON of this is relevant to a referendum that is a cross in a box - the only scope for difference would be someone miss counting a 'remain' vote as a 'leave' vote.

Talk of what would happen if you held the vote the next day is also irrelevant, the date was set WAY in advance and everyone agreed to it - I really don't get the claim here other than 'I lost so I need to come up with a reason to say it's not clear'.

Finally, you ignore the point about the size of the sample reducing the margin of error. Yes, if you ask two people to measure a pencil that is 12mm long you might get 1 result that is 15mm and one result that is 9mm. On the other hand, if you ask 33 million you'll find that the average probably comes out at 12mm. Again, the simple size of the sample reduces the margin of error and a sample of 33million is pretty large by any measure.

So really, unless you're claim is that 500,000 'remain' votes were accidentally counted as 'leave' then I fail to see what you're point is. Statistically, form a sample of 33 million, it's likely that as many people who accidentally voted leave when they wanted remain is likely to be on par with the number that voted remain when they actually wanted leave.

EDIT TO ADD:

On the subject of the date of the vote, let us also not forget that the date was picked by the remain side, they picked the summer holidays during the Euro qualifiers as they believed that this is when 'Europe fever' would be at it's highest, in all likelihood a vote at another time would result in MORE leave voters, not less.

The day has quite an impact on voting because a huge number of voters haven't made their mind up yet or vote on a whim, for instance, and a news article or conversation could cause them to change their mind. Even being in a bad mood before voting could change their vote.

Take the US election as an example; if the election was last week, before the FBI's anouncement about Hilary's emails, the result could be vastly different.

Then there's attendance; the weather has a surprising impact on voter turnout, and all sorts of other factors can affect whether or not a voter will actually go and vote; them being sick, a co-worker being sick and them having to do overtime, their kid getting stuck in a tree, getting stuck in traffic, missing a train and being an hour late home, and so on.

Sure, with a 33 million sample size, this effect would be minimized, but the impact is most definitely not zero. That's where statistical error comes into play.

If everyone who voted was 100% set on their vote, and 100% guaranteed to attend on another date, then you're point would be valid, but it's not.

I'm not arguing that the number of votes for Leave wasn't greater than Remain, but that statistically, the difference is too close to make any decision whatsoever on. Statistically, it's a dead tie.

The points about weather and so on are correct, however the UK political system doesn't make any allowances for this.

The question is not whether the vote is valid, because it is according to the system we use.

The question is whether the vote provides the government with a mandate to take the UK out of the EU and establish any regime they can achieve, without referring their plans to the people through the medium of Parliament or another referendum.

Government loses Article 50 case

A black day for British democracy....

The Remain side couldn't make a case for EU membership, couldn't win the referendum fair and square, so they got the courts and lawyers' tricks to do the work for them, thus betraying the wishes of 17 million people who voted to leave...

The British people voted in good faith on June 23rd, we all knew the rules, we all knew that 50% + 1 vote was enough to win, but not for the remain side...

They'll scream about Rupert Murdoch brain-washing stupid working class people. They claim that leave voters are racist and shouldn't have had the vote in the first place. They bang on about 350 million a week for the NHS, and so on and so on....

They'll bang on Parliamentary sovereignty, ignoring the fact that Parliament voted 530 to 57 in favour of the referendum,

and they'll overlook the fact that the likes of Nick Clegg and every other MP on the EU payroll will try every trick in the book to keep us in the EU.

I fully expect everybody to disagree with me, but as far as I'm concerned, the British people have been betrayed...

Never has the gap between the governed and those who govern been so wide...

I foresee nothing but disaster and trouble ahead for this nation as a result of this ruling...




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And so it begins: Tim Farron thinks that Parliament should lay out its strategy and negotiating position to Parliament...

Yes, Tim Farron, let's show the French and Germans our poker hand before we even get to the table...

Do i not like that... that post is so true i wish i could exhault more than once.

Watching bloomberg now and the ftse is going down and the pound is rising both at about + - 0 .3-5% in turn.
This could mean a major resergence of ukip or a similar party if brexit gets stopped.

Conversely, if the leave side can't even make a plan that stands up to legal scrutiny, what are you doing?

It's only the high court, an appeal has been allow to the Supreme Court, and they are very much of the opinion that you let Parliament do its own thing and the courts don't get involved.

Skullhammer wrote:
Do i not like that... that post is so true i wish i could exhault more than once.

Watching bloomberg now and the ftse is going down and the pound is rising both at about + - 0 .3-5% in turn.
This could mean a major resergence of ukip or a similar party if brexit gets stopped.

Anybody who voted to leave will never return to Labour/Fib Dems/Greens whatever, in much the same way as indy supporters in Scotland abandoned Labour and rallied around the SNP.

Nigel Farage must be laughing his socks off. 17 million voters for UKIP to hoover up...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Conversely, if the leave side can't even make a plan that stands up to legal scrutiny, what are you doing?

I'm wondering why I even bothered to go out and vote on June 23rd...

I doubt if I'm the only one...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It's only the high court, an appeal has been allow to the Supreme Court, and they are very much of the opinion that you let Parliament do its own thing and the courts don't get involved.

Let's hope your right...

So Parliament now has the right to reject the result of the Referendum? Charming. Just when I thought my contempt for MPs couldn't get any worse.

Pretty much.

Well, it might be time to pull out my torch and pitchfork and march on London, it's a few miles away so I should be there by the time the poop hits the fan.

Quick update the ftse down nearly 1% and heading that way quickly and the pound up over 1.5% on the euro and against the $ its up 1.12% and climbing. The euro is 'slow crashing' on the markets. Which is not good news for it.

Parliament blocking Brexit would be a gift to the far right, both here and across Europe. It'd simply confirm their narrative.

Well at least the pound is getting a little better, small victories.

So it's true then. My vote on June 23rd really didn't matter. There's no way that this parliament will let us leave the EU.

I always suspected that a leave vote would never be allowed. I was (foolishly) hoping that the remain side wouldn't stoop this low in trying to block it but here we are.

In the UK referenda are not binding on Parliament. The case was never about that, it was about PM May's reliance on the Royal Prerogative to form and dissolve treaties of her own accord without reference to Parliament for a debate, etc.

Honestly, when you look at the UK's long history of the people fighting to use Parliament to grind down the arbitrary rule of the monarch through Royal Prerogative, it is laughable to say that this decision is an insult to democracy.

I realise that a lot of Leavers are worried that given the unfolding of events since the referendum, a second Remain/Leave vote may come out with a different result. However that is not a good reason to allow the PM to essentially assume dictatorial powers.

At any rate, the government no doubt will appeal the case, so it is not over yet. Even if the appeal failed, what it means is there would be a debate and Parliament might decide to authorise the PM to go ahead with Article 50 as planned.

I actually think this decision is probably the most important the UK has faced for 50 years, and I do not want the country to rush through things out of a hope that it might persuade a bunch of conspiracy theorists they are wrong.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
So it's true then. My vote on June 23rd really didn't matter. There's no way that this parliament will let us leave the EU.

I always suspected that a leave vote would never be allowed. I was (foolishly) hoping that the remain side wouldn't stoop this low in trying to block it but here we are.

There's nothing to block, which is the entire problem. There's no plan, no proposal to actually relate to. You've essentially flipped the table and damn the consequences, and now you're angry that doing so has lead to chaos.

 welshhoppo wrote:
Well at least the pound is getting a little better, small victories.

In context the movement is nothing. You can't even whisper 'victory' from outside the solar system.'

Is there no legal mechanism for the EU to boot us out?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:
Parliament blocking Brexit would be a gift to the far right, both here and across Europe. It'd simply confirm their narrative.

And another thing...this decision has all but guaranteed the return of Nigel Farage as leader of UKIP as his "job is not done yet". Are ya happy now?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK referenda are not binding on Parliament. The case was never about that, it was about PM May's reliance on the Royal Prerogative to form and dissolve treaties of her own accord without reference to Parliament for a debate, etc.

Honestly, when you look at the UK's long history of the people fighting to use Parliament to grind down the arbitrary rule of the monarch through Royal Prerogative, it is laughable to say that this decision is an insult to democracy.

I realise that a lot of Leavers are worried that given the unfolding of events since the referendum, a second Remain/Leave vote may come out with a different result. However that is not a good reason to allow the PM to essentially assume dictatorial powers.

At any rate, the government no doubt will appeal the case, so it is not over yet. Even if the appeal failed, what it means is there would be a debate and Parliament might decide to authorise the PM to go ahead with Article 50 as planned.

I actually think this decision is probably the most important the UK has faced for 50 years, and I do not want the country to rush through things out of a hope that it might persuade a bunch of conspiracy theorists they are wrong.

There really needed to be a discussion on what the EU is, what it wants to become vs what the future would be for a UK outside of the EU but of Europe. All we have had have been lies from from leave and hoping for the best from remain (IMO).

Both campaigns were targeting the emotional vote in order to see their side to victory.

I don't regret my vote and would most probably vote to leave again. But damn the politicians, in every party, who see the 'EU' as a means to score points and as a crutch to hide inadequacies of their own policies.

The Govt. can challenge the decision.

By taking it the European Court of Justice


strange days ahead still.

 reds8n wrote:
The Govt. can challenge the decision.

By taking it the European Court of Justice


strange days ahead still.

Has to go to the Surprme court first. But I could see the government winning that and the other side taking it up.

Well mr burning the eu has a plan its all set out in the five president report they released last year it boils down to a superstate. Leave havent got a plan (in public) yet as the previous incompetants (incumbents) of No10/11 never though they would lose the vote so never even tryed to plan for it.

And of course if it is blocked by parliment chaos will ensue, what form it would take is hard to predict, but i would guess a load of politicos will be out of a job at the next election at the least.

I think the court made the right descision,

the government could have choses to make the referendum result binding (they have done in other cases), but in this case chose to make it advisory only

so I agree with the court that parliament now need to agree to trigger article 50

however even though I voted to remain I very much hope that parliament does respect the will of the people and does vote to trigger article 50 (and will be very unimpressed with any MP/Party who choses not to do so)

 Kilkrazy wrote:
In the UK referenda are not binding on Parliament. The case was never about that, it was about PM May's reliance on the Royal Prerogative to form and dissolve treaties of her own accord without reference to Parliament for a debate, etc.

Honestly, when you look at the UK's long history of the people fighting to use Parliament to grind down the arbitrary rule of the monarch through Royal Prerogative, it is laughable to say that this decision is an insult to democracy.

I realise that a lot of Leavers are worried that given the unfolding of events since the referendum, a second Remain/Leave vote may come out with a different result. However that is not a good reason to allow the PM to essentially assume dictatorial powers.

At any rate, the government no doubt will appeal the case, so it is not over yet. Even if the appeal failed, what it means is there would be a debate and Parliament might decide to authorise the PM to go ahead with Article 50 as planned.

I actually think this decision is probably the most important the UK has faced for 50 years, and I do not want the country to rush through things out of a hope that it might persuade a bunch of conspiracy theorists they are wrong.

A court in Northern Ireland says the Government can invoke article 50, the High Court says it can't...

What a mess

There are also serious implications for Scottish Independence. If the Yes side win in a future referendum, and Unionists try a similar stunt in the courts to block Scottish independence, welll...

This is why I wanted Article 50 invoked on June 24th, because I knew this is what would happen.

Roadblocks at every turn, and the British people sitting on the sidelines with their thumbs up their rears as courts and lawyers decide their best interests...

I'm...beyond outraged here. My hope now is that a snap general election is called and every single Remainer MP is kicked out on their ass.

And call a second referendum. I'll vote leave in that one too, and every other one after that too.