Brexit and the scare mongers

[Jocko]

On a major constitutional issue like this, the supermajority argument is essentially that abstention should be a vote for the status quo. If the people really want change, they should at least have to vote for it.

A "Remoaners" point of view.

[richardfrost]

After Italian election result we may not have an EU to leave by this time next year.  Try telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with France and Spain..........

Shouldn't be too hard telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with Spain. Unless they plan to invade Portugal or France, or maybe annexe Andorra or Gibraltar?

[culzean]

On a major constitutional issue like this, the supermajority argument is essentially that abstention should be a vote for the status quo. If the people really want change, they should at least have to vote for it.

A "Remoaners" point of view.

+1

If people do not vote they lose any input into the result.  The Australian voting system is very convoluted,  the ballot paper is quite large, you have a main vote but then you have to put down 2nd and 3rd preferences,  if your preferred candidate does not get over 50% of vote your other preferences are carried forward so you may get a candidate elected that was not your first preference anyway so its a bit like first past the post and PR rolled into one.

Democracy is when the people who are allowed to vote actually use that vote,  you simply cannot count the people who did not bother voting as 'being for the status quo' - if you did we would never have a change of government. The average turnout in UK elections is about 65%, the incoming government may get less than 30% of the vote - so the 35% who did not vote would 'have voted to keep the incumbent government'  - but that is democracy. 

This covers BBC and Brexit,  Jo Coburn continues to push the BBC party line even though the former Irish Ambassador puts forward very well reasoned arguments why RoI would be better off leaving EU and staying with rest of UK + NI after Brexit. 

" In a democracy it's your vote that counts; in feudalism, it's your Count that votes"

[culzean]

After Italian election result we may not have an EU to leave by this time next year.  Try telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with France and Spain..........

Shouldn't be too hard telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with Spain. Unless they plan to invade Portugal or France, or maybe annexe Andorra or Gibraltar?

Don't you just hate this auto-correct, you type Austria and it changes it to Spain.

[sparky Paul]

On a major constitutional issue like this, the supermajority argument is essentially that abstention should be a vote for the status quo. If the people really want change, they should at least have to vote for it.

A "Remoaners" point of view.

Yes I see, that's a perfectly valid and reasoned argument. 

Whilst I personally make no secret of the fact that I would have preferred a different outcome, as Martin said earlier, we are where we are.

That said,  people are still entitled to an opinion, even if you happen to think it's the wrong one. One thing I have found detestable through this whole thing has been the tendency to insult not the views or arguments, but the person or people holding those views - and calling someone a "remoaner" is a perfect example. If the intention is to shut down any scrutiny, then that is a path fraught with danger - democracy doesn't end at the ballot box.

You may think it's a "remoaners" point of view, but I suspect the supermajority argument long predates the Brexit vote.

[Jocko]

I wasn't being disparaging with my remoaner comment, just stirring it. 
The Australian system sounds very much like what we have here in Scotland, for the Scottish Parliament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

[sparky Paul]

If people do not vote they lose any input into the result.

Representative democracy doesn't work like that. Just because I abstained from voting, or voted for some other fellow, it doesn't mean I am no longer entitled to any representation in Parliament. I may not have the Government I wanted, but I still have an elected MP to whom I can take my concerns.

Democracy is when the people who are allowed to vote actually use that vote,  you simply cannot count the people who did not bother voting as 'being for the status quo' - if you did we would never have a change of government.

A periodic vote for a representative is very different to a permanent constitutional change, for the reasons I gave earlier. I agree that a requirement for a "supermajority" may be a difficult pill to swallow, but to make such a major and permanent constitutional change on a simple 51% majority of an indeterminate number of the population seems every bit as inadequate.

In a representative democracy, my personal view is that referenda are a wholly unsatisfactory way to conduct Government. They are nothing more than a snapshot of public opinion, there should need to be a clear mandate for such major and far reaching changes. You could end up with a 51% majority based on public mood that one day, influenced by such things as the weather, bogus newspaper headlines that morning, or some other transient issue that day. Even if referenda are only legally an advisory to Parliament, which most are, the damage they do to democracy is immense - Government is consumed, public mood is soured for years, and the influence of those with extreme views is inflated.

But, as they say, it's all water under the bridge now.

[guest4871]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

I had to laugh at the final paragraph, particularly the last sentence.

[guest4871]

I was astounded to come across:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/596828/IPOL_STU(2017)596828_EN.pdf

It is an extremely well formulated European Parliament study, dated November 2017, on what they call Smart Border 2 (a frictionless Irish border) which is well worth a scan.

It sets out very clearly and maturely how the border might operate. It is very well thought through.

If you listen to the politicians and the media there seems no solution. But the study seems to be saying something very sensible and practical here.

European Parliament's Brexit chief Guy Verhofstadt laughed the idea of a technical solution out of court. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar poured cold water on a suggestion by Theresa May that the customs arrangements on the US-Canada border could provide a model for the Irish border after Brexit. "I visited it back in August, and I saw a hard border with physical infrastructure with customs posts, people in uniforms with arms and dogs and that is definitely not a solution that is one that we can possibly entertain".

Frankly I feel I am beginning to lose the will to live! 

"This study, commissioned by the European Parliament's Policy Department for Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the AFCO Committee, provides background on cross border movement and trade between Northern Ireland and Ireland and identifies international standards and best practices and technologies that can be used to avoid a ‘hard’ border as well as case studies that provide insights into creating a smooth border experience. The technical solution provided is based on innovative approaches with a focus on cooperation, best practices and technology that is independent of any political agreements on the UK’s exit from the EU and offers a template for future UK-EU border relationships."

[richardfrost]

After Italian election result we may not have an EU to leave by this time next year.  Try telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with France and Spain..........

Shouldn't be too hard telling the Italians they can't have a hard border with Spain. Unless they plan to invade Portugal or France, or maybe annexe Andorra or Gibraltar?

Don't you just hate this auto-correct, you type Austria and it changes it to Spain.

 

[richardfrost]

For me, it is really simple. I was quite disatisfied with my last car, so if a referendum asked a simple question - 'Do you want to change your car - yes or no?' then my answer was, Yes.

But then that begs the obvious part 2 - 'What car would you like next?'

It seems to me we are not being asked Q2, it is being answered for us by a bunch of political animals with questionable motives, and when they decide what it is to be, I won't be given an alternative.

What a stupid way to run a country. And all because of a political muddle.

It seems to me we should have researched properly leaving vs remaining, then a broad description of the two possible outcomes could have been given. Then we vote for one or the other.

How much did Putin pay Cameron to agree to a referendum and pose such a basic question?

[guest4871]

How much did Putin pay Cameron to agree to a referendum and pose such a basic question?

  I thought it was the Electoral Commission that changed the question to what it became.

[richardfrost]

Who elected the Electoral Commission?

[guest4871]

Who elected the Electoral Commission?

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/232864/2016-17-Annual-report-and-Accounts-English.pdf

[Jocko]

Who elected the Electoral Commission?

The Electoral Commission is an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections. The commission is independent of government and answerable to Parliament.