Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

robinph · 31-05-2019 08:52AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

That would not be a good idea.

Suppose I wish to leave, but only if a good deal can be negotiated. If a good deal cannot be negotiated I prefer to remain. This is a reasonable and coherent position.

Your suggested systgem disenfranchises me. At no stage is there a "leave, but only if . . ." option. If "Leave" wins the first referendum then the UK is committed to leaving, even though if there is no deal a majority might prefer to Remain.

You are reinventing the wheel, and coming up with something that is less than circular. The voting system you seek already exists; it's the one we use in Ireland. Offer people three options, and let them number them in the order of their preference. If no options secures a majority on the first count eliminate the least popular option, redistributed the votes for it according to second preference, and then whichever of the two remaining options has the more votes is the one which commands the broadest assent. Go with that.

But you can still end up without the most popular option "winning" in that scenario.

33.5% remain (2nd pref 33.5% WA)
32% WA ( 2nd pref 16% remain, 16% WTO)
33.5% WTO (2nd pref 33.5 % WA)

Under those ratios then the WA would be the most acceptable option for everyone, but it would be eliminated and an "extreme" choice gets picked based on just a tiny number of votes rather than picking the one that most could live with.

Peregrinus · 31-05-2019 09:05AM

robinph wrote: »

But you can still end up without the most popular option "winning" in that scenario.

33.5% remain (2nd pref 33.5% WA)
32% WA ( 2nd pref 16% remain, 16% WTO)
33.5% WTO (2nd pref 33.5 % WA)

Under those ratios then the WA would be the most acceptable option for everyone, but it would be eliminated and an "extreme" choice gets picked based on just a tiny number of votes rather than picking the one that most could live with.

It's not the most acceptable option for everybody, since there are two other options that are more acceptable to more people. Remember, everyone's
"most acceptable" option is the one to which he has given his first preference, so WA is in fact the most acceptable option to the smallest number of people (whcih is why it gets eliminated first).

robinph · 31-05-2019 09:20AM

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not the most acceptable option for everybody, since there are two other options that are more acceptable to more people. Remember, everyone's
"most acceptable" option is the one to which he has given his first preference, so WA is in fact the most acceptable option to the smallest number of people (whcih is why it gets eliminated first).

But the WA would be the least undesirable option for most people.

But this is why there should never have been a referendum with an undefined option of unicorns, and any second referendum should also not have an undefined option which having three options provides.

If I have to make a choice between WA and no deal then WA will get my vote every time, but if I've got to rank options it along the range from remain to no deal it becomes less clear if the vote could end up tipping the balance in a direction the wrong way to what I'd pick in a binary choice. Even more so for people who do not sit at the extreme ends of the remain/no deal spectrum.

If leave could just come up with a definition of what leave means it would make things far simpler.

54and56 · 31-05-2019 09:53AM

robinph wrote: »

If leave could just come up with a definition of what leave means it would make things far simpler.

And just imagine all the grief and wasted energy that would have been saved if they'd done that in 2016!!

Pretty much everyone acknowledges that there are three choices facing the UK i.e. Remain, WA or WTO.

When you have three rather than two real world choices it's hard to have a simple/pure binary choice unless you go with the sort of option I proposed yesterday where people only vote for their preferred option and if Remain gets more than 50% it wins but if it gets less than 50% then the WA and WTO votes are counted and the winner amongst those two flavours of Leave becomes the decision.

Tell me how · 31-05-2019 09:59AM

54&56 wrote: »

And just imagine all the grief and wasted energy that would have been saved if they'd done that in 2016!!

Pretty much everyone acknowledges that there are three choices facing the UK i.e. Remain, WA or WTO.

When you have three rather than two real world choices it's hard to have a simple/pure binary choice unless you go with the sort of option I proposed yesterday where people only vote for their preferred option and if Remain gets more than 50% it wins but if it gets less than 50% then the WA and WTO votes are counted and the winner amongst those two flavours of Leave becomes the decision.

No one has posted in support of this suggestion.
Several have pointed out the shortcomings in it. Your persistence in talking about it is akin to those in the UK talking about a Brexit that few want.

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2019 10:06AM

54&56 wrote: »

Pretty much everyone acknowledges that there are three choices facing the UK i.e. Remain, WA or WTO.

Pretty much everyone acknowledges that the UK should have steel submarines, no submarines, or submarines made of cheese.

Let's have a vote! I bet Cheesey McCheeseface wins!

robinph · 31-05-2019 10:12AM

54&56 wrote: »

And just imagine all the grief and wasted energy that would have been saved if they'd done that in 2016!!

Pretty much everyone acknowledges that there are three choices facing the UK i.e. Remain, WA or WTO.

When you have three rather than two real world choices it's hard to have a simple/pure binary choice unless you go with the sort of option I proposed yesterday where people only vote for their preferred option and if Remain gets more than 50% it wins but if it gets less than 50% then the WA and WTO votes are counted and the winner amongst those two flavours of Leave becomes the decision.

But why would those who voted remain not get a say in the version of brexit that subsequently gets selected.

If remain were picked then several years down the line there is a vote on if the UK is to join the Euro, does anyone who voted leave in the previous referendum suddenly get excluded from having a say?

Zubeneschamali · 31-05-2019 10:26AM

robinph wrote: »

But why would those who voted remain not get a say in the version of brexit that subsequently gets selected.

In this mad system, Remainers should all vote WA, because the risk that the WTO lunatics will win is too great.

murphaph · 31-05-2019 10:29AM

Why can't these people just use the STV system and be done with it? They already use it themselves in NI because of the "contentious" nature of politics there. Brexit is just as contentious and is also roughly a 50/50 split like in NI. Agonisingly annoying how complicated they make everything. Even the HoC with their painfully slow voting process is just anachronistic in this day and age.

Leroy42 · 31-05-2019 10:35AM

And it is for reasons discussed recently on this thread that I doubt there can be a 2nd ref. The two sides are so deeply divided from each other that neither side will accept whatever proposal for a ref is brought up. It is simply too raw.

I think at this stage the HoC is just going to have to man up and take a decision, stop looking for others to do it for them. They need to sit down and come to some sort of decision and then explain it to the country. It is down to them how much backlash they receive, but that is the price of being a leader, sometimes you need to make decisions that are not seen favourable at the time.

54and56 · 31-05-2019 10:59AM

Tell me how wrote: »

No one has posted in support of this suggestion.
Several have pointed out the shortcomings in it. Your persistence in talking about it is akin to those in the UK talking about a Brexit that few want.

Apologies, thought this was a discussion thread not a popularity contest. Is there a link to the popular topics we're allowed to discuss or non popular topics we're banned from discussing by the thought police?

BTW, what Brexit that few want are you referring to? The WTO flavour which won circa 35% of the recent EU Election?

Stop moaning ffs · 31-05-2019 11:00AM

Just listening to the remainiacs podcast and one of the contributors suggested that thexonoy way May could redeem herself or even remembered after all this it is she revoked article 50 before she officially leaves.
Can she do that without going through Parliament? Maybe a reset to start it all again with a new leader and restart negotiations with the EU?

Would the EU be furious or happy with it?

54and56 · 31-05-2019 11:01AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In this mad system, Remainers should all vote WA, because the risk that the WTO lunatics will win is too great.

And thus a clear compromise decision is arrived at.

QED

54and56 · 31-05-2019 11:04AM

robinph wrote: »

But why would those who voted remain not get a say in the version of brexit that subsequently gets selected.

Because if influencing the flavour of Brexit was that important to them they should have used their vote to have their say and vote either WA or WTO not Remain.

One vote.

Cast it wisely!!

robinph · 31-05-2019 11:06AM

54&56 wrote: »

The WTO flavour which won circa 35% of the recent EU Election?

Which handily shows the problem.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D7kd8dUWsAAynis.jpg

35% chose Brexit
40% chose remain
and the rest picked an undefined middle option.

Under your proposal the hardest of Brexits would be selected, which whilst on that three way poll might appear to be 2nd most popular choice, I'm certain if you ranked peoples options that either remain or the undefined middle option would be selected and result in the fewest number of extremely pissed off people, just a lot of mildly pissed off people.

Tell me how · 31-05-2019 11:07AM

54&56 wrote: »

Apologies, thought this was a discussion thread not a popularity contest. Is there a link to the popular topics we're allowed to discuss or non popular topics we're banned from discussing by the thought police?

BTW, what Brexit that few want are you referring to? The WTO flavour which won circa 35% of the recent EU Election?

35% of 37% turnout....

It is a discussion thread, and that is why I can point out that there is no support for what you are suggesting.

trellheim · 31-05-2019 11:07AM

Given the complete at best prevarication and at worst foostering that the UK body politic has done

Based on past evidence the most likely outcome is a request for A50 extension in October. So either that will happen or its no deal

However there will be a new PM by then.

Juncker will be gone in November and Tusk most likely as well

CelticRambler · 31-05-2019 11:15AM

Choices, choices ... :rolleyes:

There's one gaping hole in all of these various referendum/voting protocol suggestions: other than the revoke/remain outcome, all other options end up with Britain being presented with the WA.

"No deal" = no trade with Europe = economic catastrophe for Britain
"WTO" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"BraveNewWorldOfUnicornMilkAndHoney" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Canada+++" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Norway minus" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"EFTA" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"WA, pure and simple" = "Sign here"

At the end of the day, Britain has nothing to bargain with, so it's revoke or WA - there is no third choice.

Professor Moriarty · 31-05-2019 11:15AM

I wish Elton John would get off the fence:

“I’m ashamed of my country for what it has done. It’s torn people apart. I am sick to death of politicians, especially British politicians. I am sick to death of Brexit. I am a European. I am not a stupid, colonial, imperialist English idiot.”

54and56 · 31-05-2019 11:17AM

So just to follow your logic.

My persistence in discussing an alternative Brexit referendum structure in a Brexit discussion thread is "is akin to those in the UK talking about a Brexit that few want."

The few you are referencing

Tell me how wrote: »

35% of 37% turnout....

secured more votes than the Conservative and Labour parties combined so I guess we definitely shouldn't be talking about the minuscule (in relative terms) Conservative and Labour positions on Brexit. Yes?

54and56 · 31-05-2019 11:20AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Choices, choices ... :rolleyes:

There's one gaping hole in all of these various referendum/voting protocol suggestions: other than the revoke/remain outcome, all other options end up with Britain being presented with the WA.

"No deal" = no trade with Europe = economic catastrophe for Britain
"WTO" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"BraveNewWorldOfUnicornMilkAndHoney" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Canada+++" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Norway minus" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"EFTA" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"WA, pure and simple" = "Sign here"

At the end of the day, Britain has nothing to bargain with, so it's revoke or WA - there is no third choice.

I don't think the UK needs the agree anything with the EU or any other country in order to trade on WTO terms. Happy to be corrected though.

Tell me how · 31-05-2019 11:21AM

54&56 wrote: »

So just to follow your logic.

My persistence in discussing an alternative Brexit referendum structure in a Brexit discussion thread is "is akin to those in the UK talking about a Brexit that few want."

The few you are referencing secured more votes than the Conservative and Labour parties combined so I guess we definitely shouldn't be talking about the minuscule (in relative terms) Conservative and Labour positions on Brexit. Yes?

You should note that their positions are being treated with the same disdain at this point. Abject disgust that they are persisting with a version of Brexit which is no longer popular.

It is these parties positions I was referring to when I likened your suggestion to others.

jochenstacker · 31-05-2019 11:31AM

54&56 wrote: »

I don't think the UK needs the agree anything with the EU or any other country in order to trade on WTO terms. Happy to be corrected though.

Yes, nobody is disputing this, though it is like saying I don't need a car to walk home in the rain.
Anyone who holds up WTO as a good thing is either trolling, deluded or hasn't fully understood Brexit. Not saying this to you personally, that's just a fact.

Tell me how · 31-05-2019 11:35AM

jochenstacker wrote: »

Yes, nobody is disputing this, though it is like saying I don't need a car to walk home in the rain.
Anyone who holds up WTO as a good thing is either trolling, deluded or hasn't fully understood Brexit. Not saying this to you personally, that's just a fact.

I would add that some who are advocating for it are likely to be immune to the true implications due to massive wealth or the reality that they will continue to be able to earn and live their life as they are doing now even if everyone else is suffering.

Shelga · 31-05-2019 11:46AM

CelticRambler wrote: »

Choices, choices ... :rolleyes:

There's one gaping hole in all of these various referendum/voting protocol suggestions: other than the revoke/remain outcome, all other options end up with Britain being presented with the WA.

"No deal" = no trade with Europe = economic catastrophe for Britain
"WTO" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"BraveNewWorldOfUnicornMilkAndHoney" => need to first make a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Canada+++" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"Norway minus" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"EFTA" = a deal with the EU => "remember this? Sign here"
"WA, pure and simple" = "Sign here"

At the end of the day, Britain has nothing to bargain with, so it's revoke or WA - there is no third choice.

Exactly! The no-deal loons talk about it as if it's end game. If the UK leaves without a deal, on November 1st PM Boris Johnson will be in Brussels looking to begin trade discussions, and he'll be told to sign the withdrawal agreement.

Except now they'll have absolutely no control, because they won't be a member of the EU anymore, and the options to revoke or have a second referendum won't be there anymore.

54and56 · 31-05-2019 11:55AM

Tell me how wrote: »

I would add that some who are advocating for it are likely to be immune to the true implications due to massive wealth or the reality that they will continue to be able to earn and live their life as they are doing now even if everyone else is suffering.

Couldn't agree more.

Politicians advocating WTO are either:-

1. Doing so out of self interest to play the hard man/woman leader type card.
2. Immune from the economic and social effects due to their existing wealth.
3. Deluded by nostalgia that the UK is still the global economic power it once was and will have serious leverage when negotiating from the weakest position possible (WTO) with the US, EU, China etc.

On the other hand people who are advocating and prepared to vote for a WTO Brexit are either:-

1. Immune from the economic and social effects due to their existing wealth and therefore the very elite that Farage rails against. These elite include (paradoxically enough) most of the Brexit Party leadership and backers e.g. Farage and Tice, Anne Widdicombe, Tim Martin, Lord Bamford, Aaron Banks, Annunziata Rees-Mogg et al plus about 65% of the blue rinse Conservative party membership.

2. Those who either have or feel they have nothing to lose as they have nothing. The UK equivalent of the forgotten rust belt which Trump so effectively tapped into. If you feel over looked and unimportant with nothing to lose you'll relish the opportunity to give the establishment a good kick in the goolies and see how they like a bit of chaos in their lives. Won't matter much to you as you already live a life of chaos which you feel can't get much worse no matter what happens and who knows maybe Johnny Foreigner will go home and you'll get that job he took from you??

CelticRambler · 31-05-2019 12:39PM

54&56 wrote: »

I don't think the UK needs the agree anything with the EU or any other country in order to trade on WTO terms. Happy to be corrected though.

In order to trade, at the very least you need to agree terms. If Britain wants to trade with any country in the EU, they'll need to agree terms - or to put it another way, make a deal. UK can certainly try to go all-out no-deal WTO, but the fact that no other first, second or third world country operates like this should be a fairly clear sign that it's universally considered a stupidly bad idea ... except in Brexitopia.

Remember it's not just a question of Widget Mfrs Ltd of Scunthorpe deciding to sell their widgets to a German and getting on with it. If Hans in Hamburg wants to use that widget, he'll be looking for a CE mark on it. Where does Widget Mfrs get the CE mark? From the EU, through the process of agree inspections and the mutual recognition of standards. No deal = no recognition = no trade.

LuckyLloyd · 31-05-2019 01:05PM

I think the WTO canard is more simply a marker of how broken societal discourse is in the UK. Those advocating it and voting for it are a mixture of those who cannot understand or do not care about what it actually means or implies. And any actual explanations on it are successfully shouted down as “remoaner” nonsense.

Leroy42 · 31-05-2019 01:35PM

WTO, as far as I know, doesn't deal with services. Is that correct? In which case even taking the POV that WTO isn't a bad option in terms of trade, what about services?

farmchoice · 31-05-2019 01:35PM

CelticRambler wrote: »

In order to trade, at the very least you need to agree terms. If Britain wants to trade with any country in the EU, they'll need to agree terms - or to put it another way, make a deal. UK can certainly try to go all-out no-deal WTO, but the fact that no other first, second or third world country operates like this should be a fairly clear sign that it's universally considered a stupidly bad idea ... except in Brexitopia.

Remember it's not just a question of Widget Mfrs Ltd of Scunthorpe deciding to sell their widgets to a German and getting on with it. If Hans in Hamburg wants to use that widget, he'll be looking for a CE mark on it. Where does Widget Mfrs get the CE mark? From the EU, through the process of agree inspections and the mutual recognition of standards. No deal = no recognition = no trade.

in the story of this lowly widget lies the secret to understanding the brexiter mind set and the true belief of the hard wto brexiteer from farage down.
they believe from the bottom of their hearts that a British widget is the best widget and Hans the hun in hamburg will go wild when he discovers he can no longer access the best little widget in the world as easily as he used to and he will blame his government and force them to immediately agree terms with the UK to secure him his widgets. the brits will now immediately hold the whip hand and have their way in negotiations.

in the days after no deal it will be easy to get a favorable deal from the Eu because the harsh reality of life without the UK will by then have hit home.

Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

Comments