Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Nearest-run Thing – the BREXIT result was tight but so hav
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Nearest-run Thing – the BREXIT result was tight but so have other referendums
“It has been a damned nice thing — the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.” – those were the immortal words of one Arthur Wellesley (the Duke of Wellington) in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Oh no you don't.
While few have the brass neck to state so explicitly (along with the implication that the voters were too thick to understand what they were doing) there is a constant thread in the bien pensant that 'they know better' and that what we absolutely must have is 'Soft Brexit' - which Donald Tusk has helpfully explained, is actually 'No Brexit'.
Now while I think leaving the EU is a bad idea - attempting to subvert the referendum result is a very much worse idea.....
"The authors found that participants who were initially more hawkish in their views about the conflict became less supportive of aggressive political policies and more supportive of conciliatory efforts intended to guide the region toward peace. This shift suggests that paradoxical thinking interventions may be effective on individuals with the most extreme views."
lol
I suspect it works the other way, too.
"Keep calm and carry on" is more of a signal to "Panic and sign your sons up to fight"
The net consequence of these lies and misrepresentations is that the EU referendum result can have no real democratic legitimacy, as it was greatly influenced by lying and misleading the electorate. It is not a true reflection of the will of the people, but more a reflection of the lies told to achieve this result, many of which have little bearing on reality.
http://www.europeanlawmonitor.org/eu-referendum-topics/the-eu-referendum-result-has-no-democratic-legitimacy-at-all.html
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/06/29/richard-ekins-the-legitimacy-of-the-brexit-referendum/
http://tinyurl.com/zmvlrr9
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/05/yossi-nehushtan-why-the-eu-referendums-result-is-not-morally-politically-binding/
They'll be dead soon:
votes of younger people, people who will be affected by the referendum’s result for the next 50 years of their life, should be accorded more moral-political weight than votes of people who – to put it bluntly – will not be with us in 10 years’ time
However, why don't they just go the whole hog now and have a stone inserted into the hand at birth. When the stone turns from green to red at the age of 60 you have to turn yourself in for voluntarily termination or be hunted down and entered into a weekly survival game show televised across the EU. You then have to run through a maze before being violently terminated by the pursuing junker Remainiaplod, your body finally being turned into dried biscuits for teenagers to feed to their pit bulls.
They could even make a film about it.......
Stephen Tierney is Professor of Constitutional Theory and Director of the Edinburgh Centre for Constitutional Law.
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2016/07/25/stephen-tierney-was-the-brexit-referendum-democratic/
I have watched this all my life and I can guarantee I personally would have not only have buyers remorse but considerable anger that I and we had been conned. The final and most disgraceful con of all was that knob Brown sneaking through the back door to sign Lisbon knowing it was not a "tidying up" exercise and had been rejected already by France and Netherlands. They simply changed the front page.
For the act of refusing to give us a referendum on Lisbon, one they knew they would lose they signed anyway. Had they given the referendum at that point and accepted a rebuff and had to redraft then I suspect we would still be in the EU and this 2016 referendum would never have happened or have been needed.
They didn't and it was at that point the scales fell from people's eyes. The EU emperor had no clothes..... And never ever had done.
So now we’re going to have to unpick the bad (yes of course not everything worked well, or even properly) and agree on the good that we’re going to keep.
I wonder whether the presence of too many coaxing foreign faces in a smallish place might not be counter productive.
We are a provincial lot us.
I think May has set out two very clear yardsticks which will make it simple to measure Brexit (and which match the concerns of voters) - supremacy of UK law and control of immigration.
If we can't get those within the Single Market, so be it. If we don't do those it will be a betrayal of the vote - and in the long run much more damaging to Britain, even if economically its less damaging in the short term. We haven't got a Marine Le Pen. Yet.
We have rejected the bad and the good. The jury is still out on whether that is a sensible trade or not.
A referendum result can both be very close, and decisive.
It's been over 20 years since the last Quebec referendum, Canada has held together, and the prospect of another one looks to be rather far over the horizon.
Now, the EU and Juncker could be delegated the negotiating role by the countries. But Juncker has lost the confidence of the German, Spanish and Italian governments (if Rajoy is re-elected PM in Spain, and a Les Republicains candidate becomes President in France then he is surely toast), so that seems unlikely. In all likelihood, there will be about six representatives EU countries (the Big 4, a representative of the Visigrad Four, and someone from a smaller country, perhaps the Dutch or the Swedes). These will have explicit instructions from their hosts, and will have their own priorities.
Ultimately, though, if the Big Four are in agreement, it will be very hard for anyone to over-rule them. They represent 60% of the population of the EU (ex-UK), and more than two-thirds of the GDP.
Will the Big Four agree to a "custom" or Soft Brexit deal for the UK? Well, Macron has always said that there are a variety of options available on the table, and I don't doubt Juppe will share that view. Angel Merkel is the politician with the most domestic jobs dependent on the UK, and is looking a little weakened right now. Rajoy is lkely to end up Spanish PM again, and he has his price (joint sovereignty for Gibraltar?) Renzi is a harder one: will he be PM after December 4? (As an aside, him resigning as PM post a referendum defeat does not mean new elections are likely. In all probability another DP member will become PM in that scenario.)
Money is always likely to be the thing that needs to 'give'. Can the UK get control of unskilled immigration? The answer, I suspect, is: how much are we willing to pay? In many ways the 350m Leave campaign actually helps negotiations. If the number became (ooohhhh...) 250m, then that would mean the government could claim victory on sovereignty, immigration, and a 100m/week reduction in the bill. While the EU would be 150m/week better off, which could be used to bribe the Visegrad Four. This would also provide a template for the resolution of Switzerland's ongoing immigration discussions with the EU.
Now, this doesn't mean Hard Brexit is not a very real possibility. But so long as (a) all the sides can claim victory, and (b) there is money to sweeten the deal, it is possible to come to a solution that works for all parties.
We now have a EU parliament, no two parliaments, MEPs , it's own currency, it's own flag, it's own National Anthem , it's own courts, it's own laws which override national laws it's own presidents ( all three of them) and finally they want their own army. I would suggest that is a tad different to what was voted on back in the 70's.
The problem is with Cameron not defining what leave means. There was no attempt to have a rational evaluation of leaving, just a choice between status quo or total chaos.
It didn't include the European Army or Migrant quotas for example.....
"All of the problems with Brexit are the fault of those people who warned, argued and voted against it..."
Will the Brexiteers ever take responsibility for anything?
There was a time when if a chap from the other side of the river came to town and married the blacksmith's daughter he would have been a stranger. For some reason this reminds me of "The Common Stream" by Rowland Parker which I read decades ago.
You have a referendum. This referendum is about a specific proposition, which doesn't really describe much in detail. But during the argument both sides will make a lot of claims about what the detail would or should be. As the campaigns are optimising for winning, these claims will be partially untrue, and also partially contradictory. The referendum has a result, and the government is then expected to implement it, but it needs to somehow fill in all the unspecified detail.
The government's options are:
0) Ignore the result and do what it thinks best
1) Implement the specific letter of the referendum, but fill in the rest of the details as it thinks best
2) Look at the result and work out where it thinks the median voter is, and implement what they want
3) Ignore the voters on the losing side and think about where the median voter on the winning side is, and try to work out what they want
4) Don't worry about the voters think and instead try to do something that matches the claims made during the campaign, ie try to do what would make the promises made by the winning side, or potentially both sides, the least untrue.
(3) is a bit weird but I bring it up because it's mostly analagous to what happens in a government vs opposition scenario: Basically the winning side forms a cartel to freeze out the losing side, with the caveat that things still weigh a bit towards the centre, because they need centrist voters in the next election, and there's a risk that their centrists will defect and cut a better deal with the opposition.
I think the tension here is between (2) and (4). If you're doing (2) then the fact that it was a narrow win matters a great deal, because if X only passed by a few percent suggests to the extent that this thing can be represented on a scale, the median voter wants the least X-ish version of X imaginable. I get the case for (4), but then you have a whole new problem trying to work out which of the various wild and contradictory claims should get priority.
Might as well declare them less than human, give them 2/3 of a vote.
You and I are never going to agree on this, of course, but I really hope it does turn out better for the British people than I fear it will. Actuarial forecast is that I’ve another dozen or so years to see what happens. I hope they aere going to be OK and that my children and grandchildren .... those that are in UK ..... are not much worse off than my wife and I have been. Already it looks as though my grandchildren will be somewhat worse off.
The FBI quid pro quo story isn't really much, but the term does provide handy shorthand for Comey's odd behaviour over whole email saga. The tales of her being unpleasant to Secret Service agents just adds more of the same.
Most Americans think she's got away with it because she's a Clinton. If we're looking for a juicy easy to understand story that will actually harm her, it's a tough one. The games being played by her campaign team are awful, but if you're already cynical - would you care if the DNC were training and paying people to cause fights at GOP events?
That said, in general I think referendums do work better when it's the government that wants to change the status quo, and they have a specific plan to do it.
Agree 52% .. Disagree 48%
BELIEVE IN SUNIL
Appearing before the Commons Public Administration Select Committee, he told MPs there had been no formal contingency planning for a Leave vote, as the government's official position had been to remain in the EU.
"What we didn't do is what we do during a general election campaign, when you have a manifesto from the opposition that has very specific pledges and you actually engage and talk to the opposition directly to try to understand those," he said.
"We didn't go as far as that, and that I think is the red line that he [David Cameron] imposed."
The reason I as a Remain voter am pretty relaxed about a harder Brexit is that in some senses the softer options look pretty sleight of hand like. A 'technical' exit isn't going to work.
Let's ask the counterfactual of the whining Brexiteers.
Should Cameron have instructed civil servants to create detailed proposals for delivery of £350m a week to the NHS in case he lost?
If the answer to that is no, what other Brexit fantasies should he have planned for, and how are they chosen?
@OKC sorry thread got too long....
Perhaps if they had just asked? Given the referendum promised? That's all they had to do.
If they had it's my firm belief we would still be in the EU. I actually have a more positive view of the outcome but I can see your concerns. I agree it's going to be a bumpy road but no more so than the last 20 years. Maybe it's best for all that we leave and forge our own way I suspect TBH we won't get quite to leave the governments heart is not truly in it. Meanwhile the EU does what it does best. Fudge....but only till next time?
He's going to look rather silly if he wins. (That's a big if I guess?)
Calls for reinstatement of the judicial death penalty increase daily. A room at the tower can be prepared at a moments notice.
We ravens at the Tower are watching this noble petition picking up signatures fast, over three thousand yesterday:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/168882
The Treason Felony Act be amended to include the following offences:
'To imagine, devise, promote, work, or encourage others, to support UK
becoming a member of the European Union;
- To conspire with foreign powers to make the UK, or part of the UK, become
a member of the EU.'
It is becoming clear that many politicians and others are unwilling to
accept the democratic decision of the British people to leave the EU. Brexit must not be put at risk in the years and decades ahead. For this reason we the undersigned request that the Treason Felony Act be amended as set out in this petition.
(These provisions to become law the day the United Kingdom leaves the EU).
National - CBS - Sample 1,189 - 10-16 Oct
Clinton 51 .. Trump 40
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-poll-clintons-lead-over-trump-widens-with-three-weeks-to-go/
Arizona - Highground - Sample 400 - 14 Oct
Clinton 39 .. Trump 37
http://www.azhighground.com/blog/post/latest-poll-shows-arizona-is-officially-a-battleground-state
New Mexico - Zia Polls - Sample 1,536 - 11 Oct
Clinton 46 .. Trump 36
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/20161017_NM.pdf
"British people will still be able to go and work in the EU; to live; to travel; to study; to buy homes and to settle down."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/26/i-cannot-stress-too-much-that-britain-is-part-of-europe--and-alw/
Let's see if that is actually the case.
The poll found that 56 percent of Americans said they think the Democratic presidential candidate broke the law, including 39 percent who think she did so intentionally and 17 percent who think she did so unintentionally.
That is the norm, not the disastrously reciprocal EU free for all.
He has something of a history of complaining that results he doesn't like are rigged.
"On Monday he specifically said that 1.8 million dead people would vote"
Clinton 43.7 .. Trump 44.8
http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
Pro-European ministers are convinced that the prime minister is closer to the chancellor’s position than she has so far shown. Other EU heads of government have been left with the impression that she is being controlled by the hard Brexiteers. As she travels to Brussels this week Mrs May needs to show that she understands the economic realities of Brexit as well as the political perceptions of her party’s Eurosceptics.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/spreadsheet-phil-is-power-behind-the-throne-qsfdp2pxq
The questions asked were:
The government should prioritise reducing immigration when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
The government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals with EU countries when negotiating the UK's exit from the EU
Result - OA / (Con VI)
Immigration: 39 (48)
Trade Deals: 49 (45)
It would be interesting if someone polled the famous (and possibly mythical) 'Soft Brexit' vs 'Hard Brexit' propositions
'The government should prioritise membership of the single market even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings
vs
'The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings even if this means no membership of the single market'
James O'Keefe
And they just FIRED the DNC operative responsible for fomenting violence #veritas https://t.co/teTYgx1n8p
Overseas investors are becoming increasingly worried that inflation and a move by the Conservative government towards a “hard” Brexit will lead to a downgrade in the UK’s creditworthiness.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/business/foreign-investors-dump-gilts-over-inflation-fears-2n8zd2x7m
A UK where a referendum was held, then the result ignored, would be somewhere else...
1) Stop people from dying. (IIUC Mark Zuckerberg is working on this.)
2) Insert some kind of chip in all the voters so that once your heart stops beating, you are automatically removed from the voter registration records.
Or because REmainers are trying to pass-off 'Soft Brexit' as 'Brexit' - and have been rumbled?
"Controversies over both the provincial vote counting and direct federal financial involvement in the final days of the campaign reverberated in Canadian politics for over a decade after the referendum took place."
The government should prioritise job preservation and business investment, while ensuring British citizens can live and work freely in all European Union member states, even if this means the UK has no control over EU immigration and is subject to European Court rulings.
vs
The government should prioritise control of EU immigration and freedom from European Court rulings, even if this means fewer jobs, lower business investment and a reduction in the rights of British citizens to live and work freely in all European Union member states.
Supremacy of UK law is rather binary; it either is, or it isn't. What is of rather more interest is the manner of treaty/treaties we might enter into given that supremacy.
Likewise control of immigration - what does May propose to do with it ?
I am entirely sympathetic with the argument that a negotiator cannot reveal their hand ahead of negotiations without detriment to their ability to negotiate. A detailed prospectus might well be self defeating. No prospectus at all is equally alarming.
"I agree that it’s a tad different to that which we voted on, but that was, surely, always the direction of travel. And I can assure you that there were quite a few people who expected greater integration as time went on."
I admire your prescience. Here is a sample of the official government pamphlet ...
"Since we cannot go it alone in the modern world, Britain has for years been a member of international groupings like the United Nations, NATO and the International Monetary Fund.
Membership of such groupings imposes both rights and duties, but has not deprived us of our national identity, or changed our way of life ...
Membership of the Common Market also imposes new rights and duties on Britain, but does not deprive us of our national identity... Remember: All the other countries in the Market today enjoy, like us, democratically elected Governments answerable to their own Parliaments and their own voters. They do not want to weaken their Parliaments any more than we would."
Obviously no mention of freedom of movement as being essential, but more to the point, I remember prominent 1975 Remainers denying any idea of a united Europe, claiming it was a fantasy of the deluded left-wingers.
My vote hinged on those lies. Fool me once etc ...