Jump to content

Another vote t'other side of the Border.

Recommended Posts

By this standard no presidential election is valid and not even PR election results are legitimate.
Why so?

 

I'm only correcting the expression "the will of the people", not challenging the legitimacy of the referendum vote.

 

Because it's a populist shortcut grossly misrepresenting the mandate which May is alleged to have, and which is just as imbecilic as the "court of public opinion" and similar haranguing expressions appealing to emotion rather than fact and reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even accepting that it is the will of the people to leave Europe, why is there such a hurry?

There is only David Cameron's promise that he would invoke Article 50 "right away", and right away is long gone, as is Cameron.

 

Yet May is in such a rush that she is disrespecting the rule of law and the very constitution of the country: there is no justification except to service the rabid wing of her party and the fear that they will all get found out and stopped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why so?

 

I'm only correcting the expression "the will of the people", not challenging the legitimacy of the referendum vote.

 

Because it's a populist shortcut grossly misrepresenting the mandate which May is alleged to have, and which is just as imbecilic as the "court of public opinion" and similar haranguing expressions appealing to emotion rather than fact and reason.

 

What better means is there of gauging the will of the people. It's perfectly legitimate to my mind. As I've pointed out before, I said all the same things about the AV referendum which my side lost.

 

---------- Post added 17-03-2017 at 09:44 ----------

 

Even accepting that it is the will of the people to leave Europe, why is there such a hurry?

There is only David Cameron's promise that he would invoke Article 50 "right away", and right away is long gone, as is Cameron.

 

Yet May is in such a rush that she is disrespecting the rule of law and the very constitution of the country: there is no justification except to service the rabid wing of her party and the fear that they will all get found out and stopped.

 

How long should we wait?

I don't see any noteworthy disrespect for the rule of law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't see any noteworthy disrespect for the rule of law.

You have outstanding blinkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have outstanding blinkers.

 

¿ Well that clears things up. ¿

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was happy that Scotland voted to stay in the union, but it's now obvious that the SNP aren't going to let this drop.

 

So yes please, let's have another referendum asap because this needs to be settled. Many English people have had enough of the grim faced Nicola Sturgeon yapping away on TV every day and if Independence for Scotland means seeing the back of her then bring it on.

 

Either stay or go, but let's have it done with one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was happy that Scotland voted to stay in the union, but it's now obvious that the SNP aren't going to let this drop.

 

So yes please, let's have another referendum asap because this needs to be settled. Many English people have had enough of the grim faced Nicola Sturgeon yapping away on TV every day and if Independence for Scotland means seeing the back of her then bring it on.

 

Either stay or go, but let's have it done with one way or the other.

 

Could not agree more. In principle.

The question is will this referendum settle the matter when the last one did not.

Also consider that independence is a one-way manoeuvre. The unionists have to win every time, the separatists only have to win once. That imbalance has to be taken into account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What better means is there of gauging the will of the people.
Non-sequitur. Nice try, though :)

It's perfectly legitimate to my mind. As I've pointed out before, I said all the same things about the AV referendum which my side lost.
It's absolutely you prerogative not to give a fig about the actual meaning of words and expressions.

 

Just the same as it is mine to give a fig, particularly when they are used misleadingly for populist purposes.

 

Considering how divisive the whole referendum/Brexit matter has proven both pre- and post-vote (the AV referendum of yesteryear does not even register on that scale of divisiveness), I believe bias confirmation in your and apelike's recent posts about the 'will of the people' matter are as clear as a nose on a face. You might get a free pass about it with others. You don't with me, sorry :)

Edited by L00b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Non-sequitur. Nice try, though :)

It's absolutely you prerogative not to give a fig about the actual meaning of words and expressions.

 

Just the same as it is mine to give a fig, particularly when they are used misleadingly for populist purposes.

 

Considering how divisive the whole referendum/Brexit matter has proven both pre- and post-vote (the AV referendum of yesteryear does not even register on that scale of divisiveness), I believe bias confirmation in your and apelike's recent posts about the 'will of the people' matter are as clear as a nose on a face. You might get a free pass about it with others. You don't with me, sorry :)

 

Given the referendum result, and the following polling, the probability that Brexit is not the will of the people is vanishingly small. That is a matter of maths.

Link established. Job done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Given the referendum result, and the following polling, the probability that Brexit is not the will of the people is vanishingly small.
And another non-sequitur. You're in good form today :hihi:

That is a matter of maths.

Link established. Job done.

That "matter of maths" is the very issue I take with badging a 17m electoral majority (out of an electoral corpus of 46m) as 'the people' (having a national corpus of 64.1m).

 

Makes me wonder whether you'd ever accept the notion of a threshold for a mandate. How does 51% of a 51% turnout (12m votes out of 23m) grab you?

 

After all, it's what the Tories had Unions do not so long ago in respect of strike ballots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And another non-sequitur. You're in good form today :hihi:

That "matter of maths" is the very issue I take with badging a 17m electoral majority (out of an electoral corpus of 46m) as 'the people' (having a national corpus of 64.1m).

 

Makes me wonder whether you'd ever accept the notion of a threshold for a mandate. How does 51% of a 51% turnout (12m votes out of 23m) grab you?

 

After all, it's what the Tories had Unions do not so long ago in respect of strike ballots.

 

I require that all reasonable steps are taken to give all adults the opportunity to vote without having to endure anything onerous to do so. All people who choose not to vote under those circumstances are deemed to have chosen to abstain but in this way still participated. They have walked into both lobbies.

With that standard met, a mandate is derived from a margin of 1 vote or more.

 

My solution to the union issue is a whole different conversation, but the minimum turnout requirement is only there, to my mind, to ensure that all reasonable steps are taken as I describe above. If there's a better means of doing that then show me where to sign.

 

The margin of error on a sample of 17 million by the way is less that 0.01% to 99% confidence.

Edited by unbeliever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, it looks like we're agreed then, that's the will of the referendum-voting majority, not the will of the people.

 

No. The will of the people in this context is the will of those that voted as abstainers are excluded so therefore it still is classed and remains the will of the people. If it was truly to be the will of all the people as you see it then prisoners, some expats and others residing in the UK should also be included. Just to add,as already stated the only way to correct that is to make voting compulsory for everyone of voting age.

Edited by apelike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.