Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

joe40

What is the best result for Ireland in the upcoming election?
Presumably a Tory majority will mean Johnson's deal will be passed so we can then enter the next stage of Brexit with all that entails. At least this result gives a degree of certainty.
A labour govt, or a coalition presents possible second referendum, or customs Union, but either way more uncertainty.

gooch2k9

McGiver wrote: »

They really need to change to a PR system. Doesn't have to be STV. Any PR would be a huge improvement. Without that UK politics will never get fixed. Ever. This is the root cause of almost all UK's issues.

And reform the Lords so that it's elected like a proper upper chamber.

And codify the constitution.

A lot is deficient in the UK political system, whilst they've think they are the most democratic system in Europe (and probably world).

I'm surprised no one campaigns for PR. Not even LibDems?
Even Labour wouldn't be seriously damaged by PR, with good 30-35% they would always had a high chance to be in the government, albeit in a coalition. In years to come it's unlikely Labour could get a majority, it would make sense to bite the bullet and go for it now in my opinion.

They were the reason the UK had a referendum in 2011 on the voting methodology. From what I have read this vote was poisoned with misinformation too. People got the idea that certain others would get more than one vote.

Mr.Wemmick

Deleted User wrote: »

In many respects, Johnson's Deal is reasonably "close alignment".

It's difficult to extrapolate results from polls.

I think a more consistent trend is that the British public overwhelmingly, in almost all polls, say they would rather not have a second referendum in the first place.

More nonsense. :rolleyes:

Peoples vote poll on 2nd Ref. Hide the truth and spread the lies courtesy of Murdoch's broadsheet.

prawnsambo

McGiver wrote: »

I'm surprised no one campaigns for PR. Not even LibDems?
Even Labour wouldn't be seriously damaged by PR, with good 30-35% they would always had a high chance to be in the government, albeit in a coalition. In years to come it's unlikely Labour could get a majority, it would make sense to bite the bullet and go for it now in my opinion.

They had a referendum on PR STV in 2011. It lost by a 2/3rd majority. It should have been a warning to Cameron since the narrative was pushed at the time that it would enable some people to have more than one vote. If you're scratching your head about that one, it was suggested that every transfer was another vote. And then they decided to have another referendum on membership of the EU.

A Dub in Glasgo

prawnsambo wrote: »

They had a referendum on PR STV in 2011. It lost by a 2/3rd majority. It should have been a warning to Cameron since the narrative was pushed at the time that it would enable some people to have more than one vote. If you're scratching your head about that one, it was suggested that every transfer was another vote. And then they decided to have another referendum on membership of the EU.

It was AV although it is clear that the British electorate does not really understand PR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

'The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate" '

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It was AV although it is clear that the British electorate does not really understand PR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

'The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate" '

Yeah, thanks. Though in operation, it's pretty much the same as our PR/STV with the only real difference being single seat constituencies. It was the STV aspect that got misrepresented as multiple votes. It just struck me that after that fiasco, Cameron should have got the message that referendums would be dominated by lies and that something would need to be done to prevent this. Or just not have any more.

Strazdas

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

It was AV although it is clear that the British electorate does not really understand PR

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum

'The campaign was described in retrospect by political scientist Iain McLean as a "bad-tempered and ill-informed public debate" '

A recurring theme in UK referenda it seems. I don't think the public remotely understood the implications of 'leaving the EU' either......they voted for an empty slogan on the back of a leaflet, not a quantifiable plan for anything.

Christy42

Interesting that Farage is scared of standing for election. He has a terrible track record so it is understandable. Still it seems undemocratic to for him to be given much of a say in anything once he is no longer an MEP so he should be out out to pasture really.

Twister2

Christy42 wrote: »

Interesting that Farage is scared of standing for election. He has a terrible track record so it is understandable. Still it seems undemocratic to for him to be given much of a say in anything once he is no longer an MEP so he should be out out to pasture really.

He just keeps moving the goalposts to stay relevant

Igotadose

Christy42 wrote: »

Interesting that Farage is scared of standing for election. He has a terrible track record so it is understandable. Still it seems undemocratic to for him to be given much of a say in anything once he is no longer an MEP so he should be out out to pasture really.

Seems like he's simply a PR consultant. I suppose he can keep his radio show, basically that seems to be his 'day job,' stirring sh1te on LBC.

quokula

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yeah, thanks. Though in operation, it's pretty much the same as our PR/STV with the only real difference being single seat constituencies. It was the STV aspect that got misrepresented as multiple votes. It just struck me that after that fiasco, Cameron should have got the message that referendums would be dominated by lies and that something would need to be done to prevent this. Or just not have any more.

Cameron’s government were the ones largely responsible for spreading those lies and misinformation though, just as they did later in Scotland. He never considered he’d actually be on the receiving end.

prawnsambo

quokula wrote: »

Cameron’s government were the ones largely responsible for spreading those lies and misinformation though, just as they did later in Scotland. He never considered he’d actually be on the receiving end.

Yeah. Kind of ironic really. Live by the lie, die by the lie. But he really should have absorbed the lesson himself.

jimmycrackcorm

Leroy42 wrote: »

The elephant in the room is that even the most ardent leavers want a FTA. Any FTA will require alignment on standards and regulations. Since the EU is one of the biggest regulation setting blocks in the world which regulations do people think they will align?

It will either be UK regulations, which the EU would have to align to or the UK will align to the EU. One of them is going to have to accept regulations over which they have no control over.

Which is the more likely outcome. The best pointer is to look at the deal which the UK just secured. A deal with gave the EU everything that they wanted and say Johnson sacrificing part of the union in the drive from Brexit.

The UK will pay a huge price for a FTA. Its not going to be a simple agreement. Apart from the EU standards
, the UK may have to give easy on fishing rights as one example.

It will not be in the interests of the EU to see the UK gain a competitive advantage and as such the will be restrictions and other means that the UK will have to give in to as the weaker party.

A Dub in Glasgo

Hyprocrite Swinson is just appalling

https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1190969677050200064

kowloon

prawnsambo wrote: »

All are also willing to cede control in one form or another to trading partners. There is no such thing as the 'nation state' as you put it. No nation can stand alone and maintain full control of their resources, economy or even laws and exist in today's world. The weak are just picked off by the strong and that's exactly what will happen to the UK. And my 'obscene' implications are shared by many commentators analysing why Britain chose to vote for isolationism.

North Korea is probably the leading nation when it comes to standing alone. I believe Turkmenistan is pretty isolationist too. Perhaps there are some lessons to learn.

Joe_ Public

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Hyprocrite Swinson is just appalling

https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1190969677050200064

Cant believe she's actually trying to defend that. The best for britain site, also lib dem related, was advocating the lib dem candidate in nearly every tory-lab marginal. Thats just outrageous really.

prawnsambo

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Hyprocrite Swinson is just appalling

https://twitter.com/michaeljswalker/status/1190969677050200064

The reality is that polling is still favouring the LibDems over Labour in that constituency. I think I posted that poll earlier in the thread. Still a big gap between them and the Tories, but this is where remain voters will have to make up their minds and vote according to which of the two opposition parties has the best chance of beating JRM. And surely that would be a huge scalp to take. Tactical voting could change the outcome hugely. But infighting between the opposition parties needs to stop. There is only one target here and that's to get Johnson's government out. I sense a massive face plant coming on if this doesn't change. And that's aimed at both LD and Lab.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cant believe she's actually trying to defend that. The best for britain site, also lib dem related, was advocating the lib dem candidate in nearly every tory-lab marginal. Thats just outrageous really.

It's not. There are Labour people involved. Malloch-Brown the chairman was a Labour member and it was founded by Gina Miller who has pretty much single-handedly fought brexit tooth and nail. I wouldn't get too excited about what it's coming out with until there's more polling data available. My issue with that website is that it needs to provide the data alongside the recommendations and that would shut the whingers up.

ancapailldorcha

prawnsambo wrote: »

They had a referendum on PR STV in 2011. It lost by a 2/3rd majority. It should have been a warning to Cameron since the narrative was pushed at the time that it would enable some people to have more than one vote. If you're scratching your head about that one, it was suggested that every transfer was another vote. And then they decided to have another referendum on membership of the EU.

The vote was for the alternative voting system, not the Single-Transferrable vote.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The vote was for the alternative voting system, not the Single-Transferrable vote.

The AV system is a STV. The difference from our system is that it was to be single seat constituencies. In practice you voted for your choice of candidates using the same preference system. The winning candidate is the one that gets across the 50% vote level first. If no-one does on the first count, the lowest is eiiminated and their votes transfer to their next preference etc. until somebody gets to 50%.

Strazdas

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cant believe she's actually trying to defend that. The best for britain site, also lib dem related, was advocating the lib dem candidate in nearly every tory-lab marginal. Thats just outrageous really.

I suspect she was caught unawares a bit. Didn't anticipate Sophy's question and tried to bluff her way out.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not. There are Labour people involved. Malloch-Brown the chairman was a Labour member and it was founded by Gina Miller who has pretty much single-handedly fought brexit tooth and nail. I wouldn't get too excited about what it's coming out with until there's more polling data available. My issue with that website is that it needs to provide the data alongside the recommendations and that would shut the whingers up.

Why are people asking questions about it just whingers though? Even one of the guys involved wasnt happy with what is going on?

https://twitter.com/MissEllieMae/status/1189939596316024834?s=20

Look at the question they fielded for that poll in mogg area? Or the fact the LD are fielding a candidate against rosie duffield, one of labours most pro remain mps, and who is defending a majority of a few 100. That just seems utterly bizarre and indefensible to me.

A Dub in Glasgo

Strazdas wrote: »

I suspect she was caught unawares a bit. Didn't anticipate Sophy's question and tried to bluff her way out.

She has been caught red handed a number of times bullshitting on TV. The accent changes all over the place

Capt'n Midnight

Deleted User wrote: »

What!?

Please explain how you can possibly derive that conclusion from my statement?

I doubt you will be able to do it.

Please clarify how YOU got BBC from led by far-right, government influenced media that tell the public what to do and how to vote

And from that why anyone should take your other posts seriously.

prawnsambo

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Why are people asking questions about it just whingers though? Even one of the guys involved wasnt happy with what is going on?

https://twitter.com/MissEllieMae/status/1189939596316024834?s=20

Look at the question they fielded for that poll in mogg area? Or the fact the LD are fielding a candidate against rosie duffield, one of labours most pro remain mps, and who is defending a majority of a few 100. That just seems utterly bizarre and indefensible to me.

As I said, they should publish the data underlying the recommendations. That would at the very least give a basis for it. It's quite valid to use more recent polling data than the 2017 election, because a lot has changed in the interim. And as I also said, recent polling in JRM's constituency shows the LD with a better chance of unseating him. I have also checked other constituencies that had Labour a close second in 2017 and the site recommends Labour. These types of websites are in danger of becoming propaganda organs unless they publish the data.

My advice to anyone using these would be to DYOR as well. It's your vote, don't assume anything.

Enzokk

Joe_ Public wrote: »

People with more knowledge of world trade than me could perhaps tell me how much attraction the 80 per cent services uk economy would have for the US with the nhs completely off the table? Doesnt seem all that much of an appetizing package to me.

Seeing that you struggle to provide services in different states, i.e. a lawyer from New York cannot practice in California without a license in either state, I think the attraction of some of the UK services isn't that attractive in real life.

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Cant believe she's actually trying to defend that. The best for britain site, also lib dem related, was advocating the lib dem candidate in nearly every tory-lab marginal. Thats just outrageous really.

Here is an article trying to calm the hysteria from Best for Britain,

Our tactical voting advice caused a stir, but it’s the only way to stop Brexit

A few pertinent quotes from the article,

As a consequence, my team and I were unsurprised that parts of the Labour twitterati went into paranoid overdrive last week, when Best for Britain dared to suggest voting Liberal Democrat in a number of seats where Labour were first or second in 2017. This was despite the site overall recommending 375 Labour candidates to just 180 Lib Dems.

We were equally unsurprised to find Lib Dems suggesting that some of our analysis was wrong, and that they were able to win more than the 180 seats where we identified them as the strongest Remain force.

The reason given for some of their choices,

To achieve accurate, up-to-the-minute recommendations, we have used a technique popular among pollsters called “multilevel regression and poststratification” – MRP for short. This method was deployed to accurately predict the election of Donald Trump, the 2017 hung parliament, and the “surprise” wins for Labour in Kensington and Canterbury that year. The MRP we have used was undertaken in the last couple of weeks, with a statistically enormous sample size of 46,000 voters. A normal national poll contacts less than 2,000 people.

With such a large sample, we are able to drill down into individual constituencies, many of which have changed considerably in their political weather since two years ago. Whereas the Conservatives and Labour polled 82.4% combined in 2017, the evidence is that they will struggle to get more than 66% between them this time. There are London seats that the Conservatives won in 2017, and where the Labour party came second. But our polling shows clearly that in such places as the Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham, and Wimbledon, the Liberal Democrats are now the party best placed to unite an anti-Conservative vote with a clear Remain message. That analysis may be inconvenient to Labour but it is the product of cold, hard, recent data. Labour remains the clear challenger in the vast majority of seats. We will update the MRP closer to polling day, to make sure we give the most accurate recommendations possible.

The highlighted part, it is easy for the likes of Owen Jones to look at one example and attack the information, but much like Swinson if they were a bit more honest about the whole thing you would find the story isn't all that they want you to think it is.

Politicians and their minions will do sneaky things to get your vote, in a shocking revelation.

prawnsambo

The other thing that has escaped my attention, that perhaps the Labour supporters on here might be able to help me with, is whether there's an election pact in place or not. Are LD and Lab candidates standing down or supporting each other and vice versa in seats where one or other has a chance?

liamtech

Deleted User wrote: »

The BBC is far-right?

That's a first.

That type of comment demonstrates the complete lack of proportion of many Remainers, who refuse to accept the result of the British people.

Furthermore, Euroscepticism has a leg in both Left and Right; it's not owned by the "far-right", and Euroscepticism does not make one a fascist overnight.

1. You are correct that the BBC is not Far right, nor in my opinion, are any of the UK News Stations in my opinion. There is nothing akin to FOX news on this side of the Atlantic. Where the BEEB et al failed during the referendum was two fold. Firstly they didnt properly scrutinize or fact check what was being articulated by VOTE LEAVE campaigning MP's and lobbyists. 'Turkey Will Join', 'EU COSTS 350Million a week', 'Trade Deals will be a Piece of Cake', and in general 'Dont be afraid of Project Fear' - all of these Spins flourished for the reason that the only People attacking them the Remain Crowd - Now before you jump to the conclusion that i am advocating that the BBC et al should not be in partial; i ask you to consider what i am saying. Impartiality is important, yes. However highlighting FACTS is also impartial. Impartiality simply means not pushing an agenda either way in a Referendum. Highlighting 'Blatant Miss-information' is not being partial. Its called reporting the facts. A lack of fact checking and being impartial, to the point of allowing ERG/TRUMP/UKIP to spread complete and total Rubbish, and justifying it by 'leaving it up to the voters to decide if its true' - is utter nonsense. Also having world respected Economists and experts, squaring off against a 'batty Back Bencher like Rees Mogg, is effectively saying that both opinions are as valid as one another - they are not.

2. You are also correct about LEAVE EUROSCEPTICISM not being a purely Right Wing thesis - but that doesnt change the fact that the vast majority of those that mattered during the referendum, on the Leave side, represented the Hard Right of the Tory Party - and the DUP, who i would argue are populist as much as they are right wing. I dont believe Leave would have passed had it not been for the massive amount of influence, wielded by right wing groups such as the ERG, who sold this nightmare as a dream

Finally i should like to say, i accept the result of the referendum. And by saying that i should like to highlight that by saying i accept the result itself - but the method of getting there (lying, manipulating facts, selling false promises, and Boris the Arch Careerist) - these things i would not accept; and if i were British i would be campaigning hard for a second ref.

Joe_ Public

Enzokk wrote: »

Seeing that you struggle to provide services in different states, i.e. a lawyer from New York cannot practice in California without a license in either state, I think the attraction of some of the UK services isn't that attractive in real life.





Here is an article trying to calm the hysteria from Best for Britain,

Our tactical voting advice caused a stir, but it’s the only way to stop Brexit

A few pertinent quotes from the article,



The reason given for some of their choices,



The highlighted part, it is easy for the likes of Owen Jones to look at one example and attack the information, but much like Swinson if they were a bit more honest about the whole thing you would find the story isn't all that they want you to think it is.

Politicians and their minions will do sneaky things to get your vote, in a shocking revelation.

Yes thats all ok. I dont have a major issue with all this. Just when you see the site recommending a LD vote in one constituency where they had 6% of vote in 2017, it begs questions. Yes, things have changed since 2017 but still. That piece in guardian doesnt clear a lot up. There were a lot of strange things in the recommendations, regardless of how many labour mps they recommended. If they do release all the data, then fine.

Joe_ Public

prawnsambo wrote: »

The other thing that has escaped my attention, that perhaps the Labour supporters on here might be able to help me with, is whether there's an election pact in place or not. Are LD and Lab candidates standing down or supporting each other and vice versa in seats where one or other has a chance?

Ive heard of greens standing down candidates but not yet of other parties in England. Mood between lab and ld not very good so hard to see much happening at a national level, however they might work together at local level.