Brexit discussion thread IX (Please read OP before posting)

robinph

54&56 wrote: »

First of all the total number of valid votes cast must always = 100% and there are no 2nd preferences.

In my proposal there is a straightforward two step process:-

1. The votes for Remain are counted Vs the combined votes for WA/WTO.

If Remain secures more than 50% it's game over.

If Remain secures less than 50% it loses and the combined WA/WTO votes are split into sub counts of WA and WTO respectively. Whichever has the higher number of votes is deemed the winner and that course of action is followed i.e. if WA wins the WA passes and everyone can move on to the 2nd phase of Brexit or if WTO wins a WTO exit is actively implemented.

I got my numbers slightly out of whack, but it still wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to chose the WTO option if the voting went this way:

49% remain
25% WA
26% WTO

54and56

Enzokk wrote: »

Edit: On reading his post again he is suggesting as you say. But that would allow a small percentage of the electorate to dictate the path of the country and that would be dangerous. How can 26% of 51% decide such a crucial question.

Well the major substantive Remain/Leave question would first of all have to be won by at least 50% of the valid votes cast.

If we assume Leave won on the big substantive question the sub question then effectively becomes what flavour of Leave is preferred by those who voted to Leave? The process I am proposing would answer both questions in one simple vote.

No doubt someone will say but if the decision is to Leave why shouldn't those who voted to remain have a say in the preferred Leave mechanism and my answer to that is that it those who win the vote should be the ones who determine how the winning vote is implemented not those who have lost the vote.

54and56

robinph wrote: »

I got my numbers slightly out of whack, but it still wouldn't make any sense whatsoever to chose the WTO option if the voting went this way:

49% remain
25% WA
26% WTO

Why not?

Do you have a better idea / structure?

My proposal may be imperfect but it allows all sides of the argument to vote for their preferred outcome (with all options including Remain still on the table) and it might encourage people to re-examine their entrenched positions and vote tactically in order to avoid the outcome they fear most rather than just vote for the outcome they ideally want i.e. wavering Remainers might be convinced to vote WA in order to avoid WTO winning the day and some who advocate WA but are terrified of a WTO Brexit may move towards Remain.

Tell me how

54&56 wrote: »

Why not?

Do you have a better idea / structure?

My proposal may be imperfect but it allows all sides of the argument to vote for their preferred outcome (with all options including Remain still on the table) and it might encourage people to re-examine their entrenched positions and vote tactically in order to avoid the outcome they fear most rather than just vote for the outcome they ideally want i.e. wavering Remainers might be convinced to vote WA in order to avoid WTO winning the day and some who advocate WA but are terrified of a WTO Brexit may move towards Remain.

It falls down, in my view in that it is trying to ask two questions at once. Many might want to remain, but, if they know they have to leave, then they would consider WA vs WTO but, they feel they cannot vote for one or other as they want to vote to remain, but they think remain might not win, so then they would consider WA vs WTO.... and around and around it goes.

54and56

Tell me how wrote: »

It falls down, in my view in that it is trying to ask two questions at once. Many might want to remain, but, if they know they have to leave, then they would consider WA vs WTO but, they feel they cannot vote for one or other as they want to vote to remain, but they think remain might not win, so then they would consider WA vs WTO.... and around and around it goes.

And I actually see that as a positive because if forces people to use their vote in a manner in which it will be most effective. It forces people to think the issues through and perhaps compromise on an option which doesn't necessarily give them their ideal outcome but prevents the worst outcome possible from being successful.

In the last vote everyone could blithely vote any way they wanted because no one foresaw the nightmare that was about to be unleashed. With 3 years of that nightmare in everyone's mind and staring down the barrel of many more years depending on the outcome a lot more people will be forced to be very thoughtful about how they'd vote in a referendum along the lines I've outlined.

Tell me how

54&56 wrote: »

And I actually see that as a positive because if forces people to use their vote in a manner in which it will be most effective. It forces people to think the issues through and perhaps compromise on an option which doesn't necessarily give them their ideal outcome but prevents the worst outcome possible from being successful.

In the last vote everyone could blithely vote any way they wanted because no one foresaw the nightmare that was about to be unleashed. With 3 years of that nightmare in everyone's mind and staring down the barrel of many more years depending on the outcome a lot more people will be forced to be very thoughtful about how they'd vote in a referendum along the lines I've outlined.

No because you spend more time thinking about how are others going to vote than thinking about what is your desired outcome.

In simple terms, people who want to leave would just vote for that, in real terms, the english tabloid media would stories about how polls indicate people want to leave and so the focus should be on the 2nd part of the consideration.
It would become a snowball as people would be influenced by that and then shift to thinking about WA vs WTO.

You can't ask one question and get two answers.

54and56

Tell me how wrote: »

It would become a snowball as people would be influenced by that and then shift to thinking about WA vs WTO.

If you're right and the snowball ended up with a much clearer majority for Leave plus within that majority there was a clear preference for WA Vs WTO how would that be a problem? Would it not produce a definitive result where none currently exists?

Tell me how

54&56 wrote: »

If you're right and the snowball ended up with a much clearer majority for Leave plus within that majority there was a clear preference for WA Vs WTO how would that be a problem? Would it not produce a definitive result where none currently exists?

Because the snowball would have been initiated by a race to get the attention of enough people to allow that particular narrative to grow.

The race would be in the opening days after the referendum was announced, whoever stooped lowest then would be able to direct the momentum.

I would be extremely dubious that such a referendum could be held without outright lies being used to take control of this as outlined. It would even be easy because once the snowball was in motion, the guilty party could point to valid polls ignoring the fact that the initial ones were either misrepresented or entirely false.

Akrasia

54&56 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be possible to have a three way PR type referendum where you listed your preferences between:-

1. Remain

2. The WA Agreement

3. No Deal / WTO.

If option 1 has more voted than options 2 + 3 combined Art 50 is revoked and Brexit is binned a la Bobby Ewing dreaming about JR being shot but if the combined votes for options 2 + 3 exceed option 1 then Remain is discarded and whichever of options 2 & 3 got the most votes is carried forward without any further input from the HoC.

Would such a proposal not only allow an informed decision to be made by the electorate but it would once and for all remove any interpretation of same from the hands of MP's and finally bring a conclusion the the Go / No Go Brexit decision?

Hold on, that's a terrible system.

Lets say remain gets 49.9%
No deal gets 25.1% and The WA gets 24.9%

This means the option which gets a quarter of the vote wins when an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would actually have preferred to revoke A50 rather than crash out of the EU.

In fact, this kind of voting structure is pretty much the only way you could structure the vote in order to give the 'No deal' side the best chance of winning. Every other system would put the No Deal side at a severe disadvantage because it's core support is lower than either a soft brexit or No brexit.

Even a vote that didn't include any option to remain would be almost guaranteed to choose a withdrawal agreement ahead of crashing out of the EU with no deal. The vast majority of remainers, would prefer to vote for a soft brexit compared with the hardest of possible brexits.

If there is a vote then it should be between
1. Revoking A50
2. Whatever withdrawal agreement is agreed with the EU.

In this case, the crash out brigade would either refuse to vote, or vote for the WA and the Revoke side would almost certainly win

If they insist on having 'no deal' on the table, then it should be a single transferable vote with 3 options
1. Revoke A50
2. Accept the Withdrawal agreement
3. Leave the EU without a deal

In this scenario, the option that gets the lowest votes is eliminated and those voters 2nd preference goes to the remaining two options.

If 3 gets eliminated 1st, then I'd suggest lots of those voters wouldn't have put in a 2nd preference, and some of them will vote for option 2 as a 2nd preference. In this scenario, it's either 1. or 2. with no possibility of a hard brexit.

If 2 gets eliminated first, then some of the votes might transfer to 3, lots of those votes will transfer to 1, the chances are high that 1 would win, and low that 3 would win.

If 1 gets eliminated first, then almost all those votes would transfer to option 2 with practically zero going to option 3. In this scenario the UK would almost certainly leave under the withdrawal agreement

The last option is that one of the 3 options gets a majority on it's own. There is a chance that option 1 might get 50%, there is practically zero chance that either 2 or 3 would get a majority.

So under all the scenarios of a single transferable vote, either Remain or the WA/Softish Brexit are overwhelmingly more likely to pass compared with the Hard 'no deal' brexit option.

Stop moaning ffs

There was a referendum in Australia years back on whether it should remain under the monarchy or become an independent republic. Whatever way the two yes/no options were worded, it said the same thing and rejected the republic no matter what option you chose.
I’m not sure how either.
Could be an idea for any future referendum on remaining.

Enzokk

54&56 wrote: »

If you're right and the snowball ended up with a much clearer majority for Leave plus within that majority there was a clear preference for WA Vs WTO how would that be a problem? Would it not produce a definitive result where none currently exists?

But you cannot realistically have no-deal on the ballot as there is no such thing as no-deal. There will be a period where they leave without a deal and when the pain hits, a week or so later, they will go back to the EU and have to ask for the WA again, which has been defeated by the people. So the UK would then be stuck in a position where they have no chance of getting any sort of deal whatsoever because you pitted two deal against each other, when in reality the WTO deal just leads to the WA no matter how you slice it.


As for my daily shouting match at the Labour position, I have given up screaming at the Conservative one, here is Corbyn confirming he is all for a soft-Brexit and doesn't actually want to remain in the EU.

Corbyn backs soft Brexit and says second referendum 'some way off'

Let me highlight some of his thoughts and what he wants.

Jeremy Corbyn has said a second referendum is “some way off” and that Labour still wants to negotiate a better Brexit deal, resisting pressure from shadow cabinet ministers to commit to campaigning immediately for a public vote.

Speaking in Dublin, the Labour leader said the only way to break the deadlock would be a general election or a second referendum after negotiating a softer Brexit deal with Brussels.

So general election first, then he goes to the EU and wants a new deal.

He also could not say definitively that remaining in the EU would be on the ballot paper in a public vote, suggesting the choice would be about whatever deal was negotiated.

But even then he doesn't commit to a referendum where staying in the EU is on the ballot.

Corbyn said: “I would go back to the EU, explain that we had fought an election campaign in order to make sure there was a good relationship with Europe in the future, that we weren’t afraid of public opinion on this, and ask them to seriously consider what we are suggesting, which is a customs union with a British say and trade relationship with Europe, and a dynamic relationship on rights would not be undermining Europe on workers rights, on consumer rights, on environmental protections.”

So he will go into a general election with the manifesto of leaving the EU, negotiating a new deal and having a say on that deal with a referendum but not guaranteeing that remain will be an option. How has that worked out so far for you regarding votes?

Corbyns’s remarks leave open the option of Labour campaigning in favour of a Brexit deal in any second referendum, rather than for the option of remaining in the EU, which is favoured by many shadow cabinet ministers.

Another indication that Labour is not a remain party and more music to the ears for the Libdems, they are going to make hay in the next election if Corbyn, Lavery and Milne is still anywhere near the leadership.

And let me just put that down one more quote here to show the crumbling of Labour.

Speaking to reporters before meetings with Irish politicians and trade unions, Corbyn said Labour would still like a deal negotiated with the EU that includes a customs union and greater protections for workers rights and environmental standards.

He doesn't understand what the WA is. It is not about the future relationship and wanting a customs union will not alter the WA. The WA is about the divorce bill, citizens rights and the Irish border. How do you secure the Irish border? By having a permanent customs union between NI and Ireland and those parts of the single market that facilitates cross border trade and ensures no border. That is already in there, what Corbyn wants is in the WA.

What he wants to do is to negotiate the Political Declaration, which is not legally binding. I am open to correction here, but this is insane, right?

Joe_ Public

Yes that's true, he is talking about the political Dec there but there's no way they can support wa while having no guarantees on how gov would proceed after. That's very reasonable but not committing to a position is getting more and more risky at this stage. The whole thing is such an obvious drag for Jeremy and the longer he bluffs and blusters about it the sillier he makes himself look.

54and56

Akrasia wrote: »

Hold on, that's a terrible system.

Lets say remain gets 49.9%
No deal gets 25.1% and The WA gets 24.9%

This means the option which gets a quarter of the vote wins when an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would actually have preferred to revoke A50 rather than crash out of the EU.

Wow, how can anyone possibly be sure what an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would have preferred? You are assuming that proven Leavers would prefer to remain rather than exit via WTO.

If a majority of the votes are for leave and a majority of the leave votes are for WTO you end up with a clearly expressed opinion.

Is it perfect? No.

Is there a better referendum proposal on the table? Maybe but I haven't seen one.

An Ciarraioch

Guido Fawkes has seen a leaked You Gov Westminster poll:

Lib Dems 24%
Brexit 22%
Con 19%
Lab 19%

Coloured by the Euros, obviously, but would completely wreck FPTP.

Zubeneschamali

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Lib Dems 24%
Brexit 22%
Con 19%
Lab 19%

Coloured by the Euros, obviously, but would completely wreck FPTP.

It is impossible to say what the result would be in a FPTP election, it depends on where those percentages are exactly.


If every constituency was exactly like this, the LibDems would win all the seats, but that isn't how it works.

54&56

54&56 wrote: »

Wow, how can anyone possibly be sure what an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would have preferred? You are assuming that proven Leavers would prefer to remain rather than exit via WTO.

If a majority of the votes are for leave and a majority of the leave votes are for WTO you end up with a clearly expressed opinion.

Is it perfect? No.

Is there a better referendum proposal on the table? Maybe but I haven't seen one.

The obvious answer is to use STV to rank preferences, so the last placed option is eliminated and the votes transferred. In the above example remain should win easily once WA is eliminated.

Capt'n Midnight

How many hopefuls ? how many rounds of voting now ?


The UK Parliament is as deadlocked as ever, and most of the next two months will be taken up by the Conservative leadership contest.

HoC calendar has lots of gaps where MP's will be elsewhere

and there's the CONSERVATIVE PARTY CONFERENCE in Manchester Central from 29th September – 2nd October 2019.






BTW this will also be on the candidates minds Donations to the Conservative Party halved in the first three months of 2019, compared with the end of last year, figures show.

Capt'n Midnight

Mudslinging time , they won't want a GE after a month or two of this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48458370

International Development Secretary Rory Stewart, who is running for the leadership, apologised for smoking opium - a class A drug in the UK - at a wedding in Iran 15 years ago.

His admission came days after Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt - another candidate - told the Times he had drunk a cannabis lassi while backpacking through India.

BonnieSituation

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

There was a referendum in Australia years back on whether it should remain under the monarchy or become an independent republic. Whatever way the two yes/no options were worded, it said the same thing and rejected the republic no matter what option you chose.
I’m not sure how either.
Could be an idea for any future referendum on remaining.

It was 2 questions/ballots: One ballot on a "preamble to the constitution" and the other on replacing the monarch and Governor-Gen with a President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Australian_republic_referendum

Blueshoe

Enzokk wrote: »

Well it is not unfortunately if your countries prosperity is linked to a strong EU. But you are right, the pro-EU parties have about 500 seats in the 750 seat parliament. Now not all of these parties see life the same way but if the anti-EU parties bring forward measures to hurt the EU they will easily be outvoted. When you look at the groups as well you have the ECR group as well who I have included in the numbers for parties that could make it difficult for the EU. But when you consider that the Conservatives in the UK is part of this group and they would not count as anti-EU in my eyes the amount of seats that the anti-EU parties has is around 150-200. That is if they all band together which may not be the case.

Also, I think there is a good mix of parties in the EU. There are more pro-EU parties but there is enough variety in this group to ensure that compromise will need to be made and one group will not just be able to dominate. That is a good thing to ensure that you don't get the type of politics we see in the UK where one party can do what they want if they have a majority.

I don't want to see the EU fall apart because Ireland is better with the EU. No doubt. Better to have a balanced parliament though. Some balance. With more pro EU members in the majority

Russman

But would any new referendum be binding or non-binding like the original ? And if it’s binding would it need a super majority ?
Maybe a two stage process with the 3 options mentioned up against each other, and a month later, the top 2 go head to head ? Not sir if that’s workable or not.

An Ciarraioch

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It is impossible to say what the result would be in a FPTP election, it depends on where those percentages are exactly.


If every constituency was exactly like this, the LibDems would win all the seats, but that isn't how it works.

One projection model:

http://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1134208937828462592

Enzokk

Russman wrote: »

But would any new referendum be binding or non-binding like the original ? And if it’s binding would it need a super majority ?
Maybe a two stage process with the 3 options mentioned up against each other, and a month later, the top 2 go head to head ? Not sir if that’s workable or not.

It would be like the previous result, it will not be legally binding but politically. So if they decide to ignore the result and they are taken to court then the court should throw it out as it is not legally binding.

BonnieSituation

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

One projection model:

http://twitter.com/flaviblePolitic/status/1134208937828462592

If that were to happen and the LD go into coalition with Labour you will see PR-STV or similar coming back as the price for it!

As well as that the SNP will be hovering for indeyref2. Scotland is lost to Labour, there's little point in being so gung-ho as they were about it 2014.

I feel it highly unlikely that it will fall like that though.

VonZan

I think a general election is inevitable. Bercow has made it clear that he won't allow a no deal without the backing of parliament and despite the fact that neither Labour or Tory will want a general election. I think we'll see one around October when a likely Brexiteer Conservative leader will be unable to deliver Brexit. I suspect the chances of the UK crashing out with no deal is extremely high at this stage, the only question is will the EU have enough support from its members to pull the plug on this mess.

Shelga

I thought Rory was doing alright in trying to market himself as a potential leader on Question Time (I mean personally I still thought he was an untrustworthy Tory, but could see how he could be perceived well) until he blew it with his cringetastic “all you need is love” ****e right at the end.

I think he must have been smoking some more opium before he went on.

firemansam4

54&56 wrote:

Wow, how can anyone possibly be sure what an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would have preferred? You are assuming that proven Leavers would prefer to remain rather than exit via WTO.

If a majority of the votes are for leave and a majority of the leave votes are for WTO you end up with a clearly expressed opinion.

Is it perfect? No.

Is there a better referendum proposal on the table? Maybe but I haven't seen one.

I think a much better option would be to have a 2 part vote where the first question is between revoke and leave.

Then the second part gives another vote between leaving with the WA or leaving on WTO terms.
The second part will only be used if the leave option wins the first part of the vote.

Peregrinus

firemansam4 wrote: »

I think a much better option would be to have a 2 part vote where the first question is between revoke and leave.

Then the second part gives another vote between leaving with the WA or leaving on WTO terms.
The second part will only be used if the leave option wins the first part of the vote.

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.

Peregrinus

VonZan wrote: »

I think a general election is inevitable. Bercow has made it clear that he won't allow a no deal without the backing of parliament . . .

He has done no such thing and, even if he had, how would he propose to stop a no-deal?

Peregrinus

54&56 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be possible to have a three way PR type referendum where you listed your preferences between:-

1. Remain

2. The WA Agreement

3. No Deal / WTO.

If option 1 has more voted than options 2 + 3 combined Art 50 is revoked and Brexit is binned a la Bobby Ewing dreaming about JR being shot but if the combined votes for options 2 + 3 exceed option 1 then Remain is discarded and whichever of options 2 & 3 got the most votes is carried forward without any further input from the HoC . . .

Akrasia wrote: »

Hold on, that's a terrible system.

Lets say remain gets 49.9%
No deal gets 25.1% and The WA gets 24.9%

This means the option which gets a quarter of the vote wins when an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would actually have preferred to revoke A50 rather than crash out of the EU . . .

54&56 wrote: »

Wow, how can anyone possibly be sure what an awful lot of the 24.9% WA voters would have preferred? You are assuming that proven Leavers would prefer to remain rather than exit via WTO. . .

???? You can be sure what all of the 24.9% of WA voters would have preferred by looking at their second preferences.

It seems to me that you're proposing to hold a vote in which you invite people to express their preferences, all the while planning to ignore their preferences. You are assigning the WA voters to no-deal regardless what what they have said they would like. This is a terrible, terrible idea.