Brexit: Now What? Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
ceptimus said:
Re the questions above about the petition being different from the referendum. The difference is obvious. In the referendum, those that could be bothered to vote could vote one way or the other. Petitions only allow sufficiently motivated people to 'vote' in one direction - so it is just the tiny minority of activists on a particular issue that 'vote'.

If the whole country were forced to vote, then probably a majority would be in support of Trump (as polls in the USA show is the case there). We're just hearing the shrieking voices of a vocal minority of Trump opponents and the echoes of those voices covered by media who have nothing more interesting to report on right now.
Click to expand...

Petition to stop Trump state visit: 1,642,174 (at 10.25)
Petition to allow Trump state visit: 81,333 (at 10.26)

Correct at time of writing.

No one was forced to vote in the referendum.

None of the above is legally binding.

The only difference really is the political clout of one rather than the other.

I agree though, that the political voices of certain demographics can be noisier than others sometimes. A bit like how SNP membership went up shortly after the Indie Referendum.
 
Last edited:
ceptimus said:
Why do you assume that those that didn't vote supported Remain?
Click to expand...

Because they did not vote for change obviously.

It is really just a different set for what "null" is. The interpretation that if majority can't be bothered to vote for such a drastic change in a simple referendum, then the majority don't want the change at all. It's a valid interpretation, but obviously not the only valid interpretation.

McHrozni
 
McHrozni said:
Because they did not vote for change obviously.

It is really just a different set for what "null" is. The interpretation that if majority can't be bothered to vote for such a drastic change in a simple referendum, then the majority don't want the change at all. It's a valid interpretation, but obviously not the only valid interpretation.

McHrozni
Click to expand...
It's not a valid interpretation at all as you're applying it retrospectively after the vote.

If the referendum had been set up and the voters told in advance that only a 50% of total electorate + 1 'leave' vote would secure Brexit then you would be correct. But that's not what happened and we can't know for sure what would have happened under that hypothetical situation.
 
ceptimus said:
It's not a valid interpretation at all as you're applying it retrospectively after the vote.
Click to expand...

Not really, I held the same opinion before the vote.

If the referendum had been set up and the voters told in advance that only a 50% of total electorate + 1 'leave' vote would secure Brexit then you would be correct. But that's not what happened and we can't know for sure what would have happened under that hypothetical situation.
Click to expand...

The electorate was told they would be ask for an opinion about Brexit. They were not told what Brexit really meant, nor were they promised the results would be respected. It was known in advance that would be up to the Parliament to decide.

If the vote was 3 votes in favor to 2 against, with 20 million blank votes and the rest not taking part in the referendum, there would be no democratic mandate for Brexit as a result of the referendum - even though 60% of valid votes would be in favor.

This is the same thing, really. Just not as obvious.

McHrozni
 
The electorate were never told what 'Remain' meant either.

"Ever closer union", was always the catchphrase, and still is for the remaining EU countries - though our glorious leader Cameron had supposedly negotiated a (non-binding) opt out from that prior to the referendum.
 
ceptimus said:
If the whole country were forced to vote, then probably a majority would be in support of Trump (as polls in the USA show is the case there). We're just hearing the shrieking voices of a vocal minority of Trump opponents and the echoes of those voices covered by media who have nothing more interesting to report on right now.
Click to expand...

Any evidence that a majority of people in the UK support Trump being invited for a State visit?
 
ceptimus said:
The electorate were never told what 'Remain' meant either.

"Ever closer union", was always the catchphrase, and still is for the remaining EU countries - though our glorious leader Cameron had supposedly negotiated a (non-binding) opt out from that prior to the referendum.
Click to expand...

UK had an opt-out for political union. Given that any major change in EU requires unanimous approval from all member states it was also guaranteed UK could not be forced into a union without its' consent. It could, apparently, be forced to severely injure itself, based on the wishes of 37.5% of electorate, some of which used the vote as a form of protest while many others fell for lies of the Leave campaign.

It really brings democratic deficit in perspective, doesn't it?

McHrozni
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Any evidence that a majority of people in the UK support Trump being invited for a State visit?
Click to expand...
None that I know of - but no evidence that a majority is against it either.

My own opinion is that, assuming that we're going to hold state visits for any country's leader, then a majority of the UK would support a state visit for the USA president.
 
Last edited:
Ms Sturgeon said she had seen no evidence that her proposals – including for Scotland to stay in the EU single market – were being taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Why would any sane person take you seriously when you continue to ask for something that is manifestly impossible?
 
ceptimus said:
Why would any sane person take you seriously when you continue to ask for something that is manifestly impossible?
Click to expand...

Of course it's possible for Scotland to stay in the Single market if UK leaves the EU. All it takes is to keep the entire UK in the Single market. It seems like a fair compromise to me.

McHrozni
 
ceptimus said:
Why would any sane person take you seriously when you continue to ask for something that is manifestly impossible?
Click to expand...
Well, when the Americans asked for "no taxation without representation" Sane King George thought that was impossible. But the Americans found a way of getting round that impossibility. Perhaps Sturgeon will follow their example.
 
Sturgeon can ask for an Indy 2 - that's more achievable than asking for Scotland to remain in the Single Market. I think we should make the Scots pay for the next referendum by themselves though - we already paid for a 'once in a generation' referendum a couple of years ago.

I expect if and when she does get her Indy 2 referendum then she'll lose and after that we won't hear so much from her - which will be a relief.
 
ceptimus said:
None that I know of - but no evidence that a majority is against it either.

My own opinion is that, assuming that we're going to hold state visits for any country's leader, then a majority of the UK would support a state visit for the USA president.
Click to expand...

Well there is certainly evidence that a hell of a lot of people are against it. The majority probably don't care one way or the other.

Perhaps we should have a referendum?
 
ceptimus said:
Sturgeon can ask for an Indy 2 - that's more achievable than asking for Scotland to remain in the Single Market. I think we should make the Scots pay for the next referendum by themselves though - we already paid for a 'once in a generation' referendum a couple of years ago.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Take it out of our share of Wembley and the Olympics.
 
ceptimus said:
Why would any sane person take you seriously when you continue to ask for something that is manifestly impossible?
Click to expand...

We've just had six months of the government doing precisely that, re: single market access and immigration controls. Or have you forgotten?

But then I don't take the government seriously...they are clearly mad as a box of frogs.
 
It depends on your interpretation of 'Single market access' - every country on Earth has that. EU single market membership is a different thing - and as long as the EU insist on that being tied to free movement of people then it's clearly unachievable for the UK, post referendum.
 
ceptimus said:
I expect if and when she does get her Indy 2 referendum then she'll lose and after that we won't hear so much from her - which will be a relief.
Click to expand...

If you'd asked me a few months ago I'd have agreed.

Toadying up to Trump really wasn't a clever move. She's aligned herself with Trump, Farage, Boris, Maggie, Le Pen and a basket of deplorables. That kind of think gets noticed in Scotland.

Plus Corbyn has let the side down in offering any unionist hope for better to come.

Even Ruth Davidson seems to be struggling to find positive things about May.
 
ceptimus said:
It depends on your interpretation of 'Single market access' - every country on Earth has that. EU single market membership is a different thing - and as long as the EU insist on that being tied to free movement of people then it's clearly unachievable for the UK, post referendum.
Click to expand...

Not unachievable just not what the ******* crazy Brexiteer deplorables want.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom