Brexit Referendum Superthread

smjm

'EU referendum: youth voter turnout almost twice as high as first thought'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

stefanovich

smjm wrote: »

'EU referendum: youth voter turnout almost twice as high as first thought'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

That article is ridiculous even for the guardian. In summary:

More young people voted than previously thought so actually they do care and most young people voted to stay so we should give 16 and 17 year olds the option to vote because that will swing it in favour of remain.

The author is a literal retard. I cannot believe they are paid by any serious news organisation. The guardian was a paper that I at least had some respect for in the past. All gone now. It is garbage, I'd rather read the mirror or the sun.

Lemming

stefanovich wrote: »

The author is a literal retard. I cannot believe they are paid by any serious news organisation. The guardian was a paper that I at least had some respect for in the past. All gone now. It is garbage, I'd rather read the mirror or the sun.

Eh, the author was quoting a cited source's words. Hence the quoation marks (y'know, those " things?) around the statement.

The problem with the article is that other than revising the number of young voter turn-out which was apparently some 20% higher than first reported, there is no other figures or breakdown provided so it doesn't really add anything new to the mix, other than to shoot down the argument that 'the yoof' aren't as feckless as their elders might think. As for allowing 16 or 17 year olds to vote on this, it's a compelling argument because it is they who will really have to live with the consequences of the decision far longer than anyone else. And it's not like there hasn't been precedent set already within the UK for such a vote ....

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

'EU referendum: youth voter turnout almost twice as high as first thought'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high

You could ask why that new study is more correct that the previous one it is saying was wrong.

I don't understand why it is not possible to get definite figures based on hard data rather than polls. Ballots are secret but there must be a public registry with the list of people who actually voted.

Bob24

Lemming wrote: »

As for allowing 16 or 17 year olds to vote on this, it's a compelling argument because it is they who will really have to live with the consequences of the decision far longer than anyone else. And it's not like there hasn't been precedent set already within the UK for such a vote ....

You can also say they are not mature enough and are lacking experience to think it through and it should be upped to 21 years old. Or if the life expectancy argument is prevalent, why not giving voting rights to 14 on 15 years old either?

It is a never ending argument and you have to set the limit somewhere and keep it consistent for all votes.

Nate--IRL--

Posted in the AH thread, but it might find a better audience here.

UK Parliamentary committee getting to grips with what is required and what is possible with leaving the EU.

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/cb083c53-3998-4f3a-8eca-e114e3dbdf0b

Nate

Lemming

Bob24 wrote: »

You can also say they are not mature enough and are lacking experience to think it through and it should be upped to 21 years old. Or if the life expectancy argument is prevalent, why not giving voting rights to 14 on 15 years old either?

It is a never ending argument and you have to set the limit somewhere and keep it consistent for all votes.

It's not really a never-ending argument on two counts: a) this is a referendum, not an election - a distinction apparently lost on a lot of the UK's population (including civil servants in not setting a two-thirds majority threshold or similar) and b) at sixteen you can be tried as an adult, in an adult court.

This was an exceptional vote that will quite literally redefine the shape of a country. Hence why the Scottish independence referendum allowed similar.

ancapailldorcha

Bob24 wrote: »

You can also say they are not mature enough and are lacking experience to think it through and it should be upped to 21 years old. Or if the life expectancy argument is prevalent, why not giving voting rights to 14 on 15 years old either?

It is a never ending argument and you have to set the limit somewhere and keep it consistent for all votes.

Someone at work said the poll she was working in for the referendum had quite a few pensioners with dementia who needed help filling out their ballots. Should they be excluded?

smjm

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Someone at work said the poll she was working in for the referendum had quite a few pensioners with dementia who needed help filling out their ballots. Should they be excluded?

Broaden it out a bit: should we exclude anyone with a mental health issue, regardless of age, from the franchise?

Bob24

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Someone at work said the poll she was working in for the referendum had quite a few pensioners with dementia who needed help filling out their ballots. Should they be excluded?

Hence my point around never ending arguments. You can always find cases where you think adding or removing people from the electorate makes sense, and the rules will never be perfect. What is important is consistency so that rules can not be modified for a specific vote depending on how people are expected to vote and what is the desired result.

smjm

Bob24 wrote: »

Hence my point around never ending arguments. You can always find cases where you think adding or removing people from the electorate makes sense, and the rules will never be perfect. What is important is consistency so that rules can not be modified for a specific vote depending on how people are expected to vote and what is the desired result.

Indeed, and the UK parliament debated all this before the referendum and decided that the electorate for the referendum should be the same as for a general election, i.e. no 16 or 17 year-olds.

smjm

'Pro-EU Labour and Tory MPs look at forming a new centrist party'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/labour-tory-mps-talk?CMP=share_btn_tw

ancapailldorcha

smjm wrote: »

'Pro-EU Labour and Tory MPs look at forming a new centrist party'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/labour-tory-mps-talk?CMP=share_btn_tw

One to watch if it comes to anything.

Jimmy Garlic

Bob24 wrote: »

Petition to re-run the vote officially rejected (the minimum turnout and score mentioned by the petitioners to validate the result had no legal basis): http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/uk/petition-for-second-brexit-vote-rejected-by-british-government-1.2716817

I am sure the tens of thousands from Vatican City and North Korea who signed the petition will be very disappointed.

smjm

Lemming wrote: »

It's not really a never-ending argument on two counts: a) this is a referendum, not an election - a distinction apparently lost on a lot of the UK's population (including civil servants in not setting a two-thirds majority threshold or similar) and b) at sixteen you can be tried as an adult, in an adult court.

This was an exceptional vote that will quite literally redefine the shape of a country. Hence why the Scottish independence referendum allowed similar.

Just to clarify, do you believe that another Scottish independence referendum should require a two-thirds majority threshold or similar? Because the last one was based on a simple majority.

Todd Toddington III

smjm wrote:

Just to clarify, do you believe that another Scottish independence referendum should require a two-thirds majority threshold or similar? Because the last one was based on a simple majority.

I would say a 2/3 majority for important referendums like independence from Britain. I would have said the same for brexit. It's too big a decision to be passed on such small margins. But isn't hindsight great

stefanovich

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

I would say a 2/3 majority for important referendums like independence from Britain. I would have said the same for brexit. It's too big a decision to be passed on such small margins. But isn't hindsight great

Fiddlesticks!

You are saying to ignore the will of the majority? What if the status quo is essentially bad? Nonsense and utterly undemocratic!

Lemming

smjm wrote: »

Just to clarify, do you believe that another Scottish independence referendum should require a two-thirds majority threshold or similar? Because the last one was based on a simple majority.

Yes I do. Simple election-politics behaviour will do the nation no favour given how close the voting has been, both for the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Both outcomes have sowed nothing but division (and in the case of Brexit a 56% rise in reported racial attacks) because the populace has been literally split in half.

smjm

Lemming wrote: »

Yes I do. Simple election-politics behaviour will do the nation no favour given how close the voting has been, both for the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Both outcomes have sowed nothing but division (and in the case of Brexit a 56% rise in reported racial attacks) because the populace has been literally split in half.

At least you're consistent in your views. I've seen some people arguing that the EU referendum should have required a qualified majority, but the Scottish referendum should stick with a simple majority. Personally, I'm happy with a simple majority for all referenda.

Lemming

smjm wrote: »

At least you're consistent in your views. I've seen some people arguing that the EU referendum should have required a qualified majority, but the Scottish referendum should stick with a simple majority. Personally, I'm happy with a simple majority for all referenda.

Then you haven't really thought through the implications of simple majority on a referendum of this nature. We're talking about shaping the shape or direction of a country, not sticking some useless windbag's @rse in a seat for four or five years on an outrageous salary whilst they party with coke & hookers. Simple majority referenda effectively force change on an entire population regardless of how many of them disagree with that change. In both of the above cases, the changes are both drastic and profound, unlike something like gay marriage which really only affects a tiny percentage of the population in any practical and meaningful manner.

smjm

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

I would say a 2/3 majority for important referendums like independence from Britain. I would have said the same for brexit. It's too big a decision to be passed on such small margins. But isn't hindsight great

It's a fair point, but then you'll have people arguing over what is and isn't important. Was the vote on same-sex marriage last year important? It didn't get a two-thirds majority.

smjm

Lemming wrote: »

Then you haven't really thought through the implications of simple majority on a referendum of this nature. We're talking about shaping the shape or direction of a country, not sticking some useless windbag's @rse in a seat for four or five years on an outrageous salary whilst they party with coke & hookers. Simple majority referenda effectively force change on an entire population regardless of how many of them disagree with that change. In both of the above cases, the changes are both drastic and profound, unlike something like gay marriage which really only affects a tiny percentage of the population in any practical and meaningful manner.

Actually, I have really thought things through. I just came to a different conclusion than yours.

Bob24

smjm wrote: »

It's a fair point, but then you'll have people arguing over what is and isn't important. Was the vote on same-sex marriage last year important? It didn't get a two-thirds majority.

Exactly.

Also, if any major international decision for the country requires two thirds majority ... it should not only apply for withdrawing from agreements with foreign countries but also for entering now ones.

And did anyone require two third majority for signing the Maastricht treaty or the Lisbon Treaty which be very much depended EU integration?

This kind of arguments usually come from people whose political views tends to be with the status quo ...

CMOTDibbler

smjm wrote: »

'Pro-EU Labour and Tory MPs look at forming a new centrist party'

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/labour-tory-mps-talk?CMP=share_btn_tw

Isn't there one of those already? Liberal Democrats or some such?

Todd Toddington III

stefanovich wrote:

You are saying to ignore the will of the majority? What if the status quo is essentially bad? Nonsense and utterly undemocratic!

Really? There is precedent for a 2/3 majority so how is this nonsense? Nothing undemocratic about this. A majority of 1 is statistically a 50/50 split but you'd be happy to stake your countries future on such a hypothetical situation? That my friend is nonsense

Todd Toddington III

smjm wrote: »

It's a fair point, but then you'll have people arguing over what is and isn't important. Was the vote on same-sex marriage last year important? It didn't get a two-thirds majority.

Does a vote on same sex marriage affect you personally? Maybe if your gay or a bigot it does but this won't affect the economy or the average households quality of living (unless your are gay whereby you benefit slightly from tax breaks). It is an important vote in terms the direction we take as a society but it wasnt an economically important one. Big difference. However we're getting into semantics here, a vote on the course my country takes into the future is important to everyone including our trading partners, a vote on who you can marry affects just you and your partner. One really should be able to distinguish the difference

Todd Toddington III

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Isn't there one of those already? Liberal Democrats or some such?

Sounds too lefty though

smjm

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

Does a vote on same sex marriage affect you personally? Maybe if your a bigot it does (obvs not you personally). We're getting into semantics here, a vote on the course my country takes into the future is important to everyone, a vote on who you can marry affects just you and your partner. You should really be able to recognise the difference

Obviously that was just a general example. Another might be the Constitution referendum of 1937, which wouldn't have passed with a two-thirds majority rule in place. I prefer a simple majority rule; you don't. Some people will agree with me; some people will agree with you. Can't please everyone!

Bob24

Todd Toddington III wrote: »

Really? There is precedent for a 2/3 majority so how is this nonsense? Nothing undemocratic about this. A majority of 1 is statistically a 50/50 split but you'd be happy to stake your countries future on such a hypothetical situation? That my friend is nonsense

If every major change of relationship with the EU had to be voted with a 2/3 majority referendum, Ireland or the UK wouldn't even be part of the EU (no referendum to join), and many if not most treaties wouldn't have been ratified (no previous referendum related to the EU required a 2/3 majority).

Saying that a 2/3 majority is required to undo what was done either without referendum or with simple majority referendums seems inconsistant.

A few selected things which would be different if that rule was consistently applied:
- there would be no Eurozone and no Schengen area (the relavant treaties where not voted with 2/3 majorities in all countries where referendums were organised)
- the enlargement of 1995 wasn't voted with 2/3 majority in all countries where there was a referendum (this means Finland and Sweden wouldn't have joined the EU because a similar proportion of their voters wanted to join than British currently want to leave, not 2/3)
- same for the enlargement of 2004: Malta only voted 53.6% in favour of joining
- or Croatia didn't have 2/3 majority either in 2013 and wouldn't have joined

Would you think all the things I mentioned shouldn't have happen given they were short of that majority?

I think simple majority is fine and these decisions are legitimate (with 2/3 nothing would ever change), but consistency commands to have the same preference when applied to the Brexit vote.

stefanovich

Todd Toddington III wrote:

Really? There is precedent for a 2/3 majority so how is this nonsense? Nothing undemocratic about this. A majority of 1 is statistically a 50/50 split but you'd be happy to stake your countries future on such a hypothetical situation? That my friend is nonsense

What precedent?

Bob24 wrote:

I think simple majority is fine and these decisions are legitimate (with 2/3 nothing would ever change), but consistency commands to have the same preference when applied to the Brexit vote.

Exactly. The pro eu types are screaming for this 2/3 on the assumption that the default is remain.

How about we are out unless 2/3 say we should remain? How about we throw in the child voters for them? Still not sounding great? I suggest you quit the collective tantrum. Father knows best.