Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We now have the actual wording of the referendum question
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » We now have the actual wording of the referendum question
There’s a view that people prefer to vote Yes to things than be negative and the planned wording therefore favours staying in the EU. I’m not so convinced. The last two big referendums, AV in 2011 and the IndyRef in Scotland, both saw No sides win.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I have a very big problem with the political undemocratic side of Europe and the non entities taking the top positions over which I have no direct control in electing. The EU Parliament is the political equivalent of FIFA and continues daily with "mission creep". Given the shenanigans that go on against the UK while we are actually a member I am also under no illusions that this will be any better and most like probably worse if we leave so of concern.
However, If we could also include a question on Eurovision contest on the same ballot paper that would swing me to BOO for sure.
That seems unlikely. I think 60:40 is the best "Yes" can hope for.
if we leave it would probably be more mathematically correct to say "go forth and divide" ?
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at the Express headline. Are they so self deluded as to really believe they own the campaign for a referendum?
Are we to rejoin EFTA? Will they want us to? Would we remain signed up to the EEA Agreement? This agreement between 3 of the 4 EFTA members and the EU applies the 4 fundamental freedoms which of course include freedom of movement. Or are we looking at a bespoke bilateral agreement such as Switzerland has? If so what will be in it?
Without clear, coherent and credible answers to these questions BOO is doomed and getting agreement on a platform will not be easy. Farage for one is no team player.
I have a lot of reservations about the EU. It is bureaucratic, anti-democratic, wasteful, has a truly absurd Parliament and made a major mistake in introducing the Euro without adequate integration. The consequences of the latter have not only affected our economic performance but are continuing to distort the priorities of the EU. I have no emotional attachment to it whatsoever.
But without a clear, credible alternative the answer to the question in the thread header must be yes.
"Are you for a free, German, independent and social, Christian and united Austria, for peace and work, for the equality of all those who affirm themselves for the people and Fatherland?"
I favour free trade, yet I don't favour a political union, nor do I support common fiscal or monetary polices. Where are the checks and balances on The Commission? Given the anaemic state of The EU's economy and its insipid parliament my support is lukewarm at the best of times.
Which way should I vote?
Of course if OUT wins, we'll lose Scotland too, so a double victory.
Is "trounce" the most appropriate word ? What will you have used if his majority was 166 ?
The straightforward answer is I don't think it matters much which way you vote. If the Euro and ergo the EU is to survive at all, there is going to have to be political integration of the Eurozone states. We've seen that happening already, and indeed many politicians were fairly open back in 1999 that that was the end goal. It was one reason why Brown was, in what remains by far the best decision he made in his life, so hostile to British membership.
However, that can't include those countries that are not members (like us) for the simple reason that it's not practical to have more than one currency in the same country (just look at the books on the founding of the current USA if you don't believe me). So eventually, while one group of countries is integrating politically into a United States of Europe, the others will be more loosely attached via the EU. The two-tier Europe proposed by Michael Howard, in fact. At that point, all treaties will have to be renegotiated to reflect that reality anyway.
That would not be easy or pleasant for anybody - it's certainly not great, from our point of view, to have one massive and protectionist trading bloc just off our shores taking around 50% of our exports. It wouldn't do our car manufacturing any favours, for example. But if Europe is to survive, it is the only solution. There is one simple problem. The European governing bodies would never agree to it. They are so emotionally wedded to the idea of a continent-wide federation that to give up this idea and confront reality is something it appears they are simply incapable of doing. They increasingly resemble the League of Nations in 1940, patiently defending its record as Europe collapsed in flames all about them.
That's where my final caveat comes in. At some point, Greece will now have to default. It is inconceivable that what is happening there can end any other way. Indeed, it might well be ended in a military coup. At that point, the existence of the Eurozone and the EU itself is severely threatened. If it happened at the moment of the referendum in Britain and swung the result to NO, that would surely be terminal. Even if it isn't, with the Frente Nationale doing so well in France and the rise of radicalism in Spain and Italy, it seems unlikely that Brussels can carry on with 'business as usual' for much longer.
So the reason I don't think it matters is because the way things are going, it seems unlikely the EU can last much longer in its current form anyway. Of course, people have confidently predicted that before and been wrong. But the economic, social and political crises across the whole continent, most of which can be blamed on the EU and particularly the Euro, have the ominous look of a perfect storm.
I do agree with others that the OUT campaign needs to mobilise ASAP, in the next few days Cameron's position will be weakened, he needs holding to account.
The BOO campaign is not a political party. It can't determine what our future will be post-exit.
The skewing of the electoral system in favour of Labour, where they win very large numbers of seats on comparatively small vote shares, has done something to mask the scale of the problem, much as it did in the 1980s.
So there's no particular electoral problem with being on a No side.
http://newstonoone.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/2020-and-greens-renewing-energy.html
http://www.aec.gov.au/elections/referendums/
"If you are an Australian citizen aged 18 years or older, you are required by law to enrol and vote in referendums and federal elections."
Perhaps the 11.3m who voted Conservative in spite of the Express might actually be more deserving of credit?
Indeed I cannot recall a time when the Conservative party was as united as it is today. The discipline of coalition has reduced party infighting considerably. I suspect Reckless and Carswell are regretting their foolishness.
Similarly, no one cares about the details of trade deals with the eurozone, but if the large UK employers start talking about the impact on jobs if we vote to leave then their employees will take notice.
Answer appears to be no if there has been a campaign before. One referendum question cited is the one on the Good Friday Agreement in 1998, which was: "Do you support the Agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland and set out in Command Paper 3883?"
AFAIC, Standing Orders only apply until the final Bill vote - when everyone can pile on. Anyone shed some light on this?
If it doesn't, it will founder, for similar reasons to why YES for Scottish independence did, even though the alternative was obvious.
The United Kingdom should be:
* a free sovereign nation able to make is own laws and govern its own affairs
* in full control of its borders
* able to make trading relationships with whoever we like
* able to resolve all internal matters without recourse to supranational courts.
All of these can be presenting in a positive outward looking way by the main players, but the implications will be able to be drawn by the media and commentators about the salient less positive aspects that the voters will also favour, vis
* able to control our own immigration levels
* to being tied to "ever closer union"
* not being bound by the ECJ/ECHR etc
The OUTs will never win by getting into detail because it will look like nit-picking. The INs have the advantages of possession and the fear factor of job losses (whether it's true or not).
OUT needs to establish the EU's direction of travel which is obvious if you look, and to ask the awkward question. Highlight the statements already made by the leaders. Ask them for categorical denials. You will get evasive answers but that's enough.
If we are going to be be left behind anyway, the decision to leave becomes much easier.
" Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (The Common Market)?"
I agree that a coherent alternative needs to be found, but if it is, then it's a No from me. I'm out.
(Could catchphrases from BGT and Dragon's Den be decisive in the battle?!)
Fifa gets the vast majority of its income from the world cup and little of its expenses. For example: Figures from South Africa 2010 show that FIFA gave the insufficient figure of $482 million to assist with their hosting and left the tournament with a $1.9 billion profit, primarily made via from sponsorship. So while South Africa are likely to be counting the costs of hosting a tournament that was supposed to help their economy, FIFA came away from Africa with their pockets full.
Also Fifa supports financially about 150 country football associations out of its 200+ members. It is to be conjectured how much of this money reaches the footballers teams and facilities on the ground after being filtered by the organisations above them.
It requires sponsors like Visa and Coca-Cola to withdraw their sponsorship and make Fifa feel the pain in their wallets.
The EU is getting to be in a similar position and that is why DC may have trouble in getting an forms of agreement from too many self-interested parties, and countries (like Poland) who are very happy for some of their social security costs to be shifted to apparently wealthier nations like the UK.
All this is a valid objection to having referendums at all, and leaving it to Parliament.
"Should Britain remain a member of the European Union on the reformed terms negotiated by Her Majesty's Government?"
I do think that Cameron's endorsement of his renegotiation will sway a large number of people, but if it is a sort of middle option bias in the polling then it could be a lot closer than I currently expect.
And actually most people haven't given the EU a lot of thought, so allegiances outside the core Europhile and BOO camps are quite shallow - more so than the electorate in a GE. An average view is probably vague resentment but concern about being outside, like a slightly restless spouse in an argumentative marriage. It probably takes an attractive alternative to prompt actually walking out.
I can't see May 2016 as the date, as there's too much else going on in a lot of the country (but not all) on the same day. The Electoral Commission will want to see evidence that the chosen date would not favour either side of the debate. It will be interesting to see how much time an early referendum would allow for the negotiation phase, does the early date put pressure on the negotiating teams to get a result, or does it lead to a watering down of their scope?
Also liking the comparisons between the EU and FIFA - both organisations that exist to do good, yet over time end up becoming unaccountable monsters of their own bureaucracy.
Labour also gained 1.5% vote share in spite of the SNP and UKIP incursions into their vote. They weren't "trounced". That is a Tory Story.
The Tory majority is entirely based on their 28 gains from the LibDems (less their four losses to Labour). It was the LibDems who were trounced.
It is also true that Labour was trounced by the SNP. But that had nothing to do with the Tories.
With apologies to FIFA.
As an instinctive IN-er, but with a pragmatic understanding of its shortcomings, the two major issues for me are inefficiency and lack of democracy. I'm much less bothered about free movement.
Unless you are going to suggest the Tories did fairly well in 2005 when they were the small matter of 70 seats behind Labour and had a much higher vote share than Miliband got?
Sponsors income is a rounding error in that context. They're holding the events for national pride and (perhaps more tellingly) for personal aggrandisement. Both cups would be funded by the holding nations even if all the current sponsors pulled out.
And that assumes that current sponsors would not be replaced by new ones. I doubt Alibaba or Xiaomi give a tinker's cuss about the allegations.
But it will never happen.