Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Surely that will be the verdict of history?
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Surely that will be the verdict of history?
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.
I’m going out on a limb. May won’t last as long as Thatcher. Controversial I know.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Surely it is one of the more mundane uses of social media to post a "sorry I couldn't be there" message? I'd be surprised if no-one tweeted to Farage that they regretted not being able to meet him in Harrogate.
I suppose Stewart Jackson is probably one of those people who hunts comments on YouTube videos looking for people to disagree with. Maybe we'd find deep in the comments on a BBC Philharmonic performance of Ode to Joy Stewart Jackson hurling invective at someone expressing their pleasure at being able to listen to the piece while washing the dishes.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective.
Yes, I don't see why he felt the need to do it in the first place.
You shouldn’t call anyone a cretin, least of all a sick child or parent thereof. Politics does seem to attract some very unpleasant people.
I think we have seen politics descend into a cesspit of abuse and serious threats.
The reference to the child is sick.
These people involved in this abusive lanuage need to be taken to task and if a parliamentarian thrown out
Thrown out by whom? Certainly there are lines, even just with language, which most reasonable people would not regard as acceptable to be crossed even against the most horrible of their opponents, but how many people are going to not vote for Party X because the candidate is an arse? Not enough to make a difference, I'd bet that much.
Civility is not the be all and end all of course, but it is nice, however until there's a proper cost to it people will generally get away with it.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Surely that will be the verdict of history?
It's a bit early to say that. It could be like trying to judge Mrs Thatcher's premiership just after the 1981 riots.
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective.
Yes, I don't see why he felt the need to do it in the first place.
You shouldn’t call anyone a cretin, least of all a sick child or parent thereof. Politics does seem to attract some very unpleasant people.
I think we have seen politics descend into a cesspit of abuse and serious threats.
The reference to the child is sick.
These people involved in this abusive lanuage need to be taken to task and if a parliamentarian thrown out
Thrown out by whom? Certainly there are lines, even just with language, which most reasonable people would not regard as acceptable to be crossed even against the most horrible of their opponents, but how many people are going to not vote for Party X because the candidate is an arse? Not enough to make a difference, I'd bet that much.
Civility is not the be all and end all of course, but it is nice, however until there's a proper cost to it people will generally get away with it.
The standards committee or even in some cases following a hate crime conviction
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.
At present there may be an offer.
Who is the principal on the UK side who is capable of accepting an offer and making it stick? Arguably not Theresa May.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lost
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.
At present there may be an offer.
Then accepting the offer could be an option on the table.
There really is no need for any of this - if Parliament doesn't want May's plan, or no deal, they can demand other things be tried. They just have the not unreasonable desire for democratic cover, but if you are going for democratic cover then how can it be fair to exclude the options you do not want. Either you want to ask the people for their view or you don't. If you don't want to risk the public picking the wrong option, don't ask them at all.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
If that comes to pass, the entire May premiership would have been a complete waste of time.
Yep
Any referendum will have to be deal - no deal - remain
You cannot remove an option
I would question whether no deal is really an option, although the problem is that too many Brexiteers wouldn't agree.
Since no deal isn’t an option, and since there isn’t a deal, this referendum is looking a bit of a foregone conclusion.
Whether or not the government endorses it, there is a deal on the table.
A view that fails to recognise that a deal has to be endorsed by two sides.
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
The fairest would surely be:
1. SM + CU for UK 2. FTA for GB, SM + CU for NI 3. EFTA for GB, SM + CU for NI 4. Remain 5. No Deal
AV would be used with the lowest ranked option getting knocked out at each stage until only 2 Remained and the option that got over 50% is the Brexit or Not Brexit we get.
That way nobody could complain and every option is covered including the backstop and the only FTA acceptable to the EU
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lost
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain. It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.
A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lost
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.
No you just cannot exclude no deal much as I am totally opposed it
You are trying to make t favourable to remain and that would not cut it
Everyone would have to be open to the three options otherwise it would be invalid
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disaster
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
That is incredibly wishful thinking, quite clearly based on your preferred outcome and assuming it would all work out fine. Though I support a second vote now, there is simply no strong counter to the suggestion that someone could ask for a third, or fourth or fifth, and blithely stating the first was done in ignorance wouldn't cut it. For one thing since we won't ever have actually left, plenty of people could claim they didn't know for sure what it meant in the second vote, since there were options which people predicted chaos on, but we never saw it. People were told it would be a disaster and chaotic in the run up to the first one too after all, but apparently that doesn't count.
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disaster
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.
Well in fairness whether they oust her or not we are being dragged to the abyss by Parliament as they cannot agree a course of action. It would be nice to think even if only from a stability point of view that not ousting May would ensure they could agree a course of action, but there's little reason to believe that.
A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disaster
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.
Kle 4 has given you the perfect answer and I fully endorse his comments
If we do end up remaining. Can we all have a bit of a lie down?
If there is a 60 - 40 or larger margin to remain it should settle it
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
Only in the Tory party.
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
I am sure you are not that naive. It would be a disaster
Who for? Most people would breathe a sigh of relief. Thank God that's settled. Even most of those who voted leave. It would only be a disaster for the zealots and the Tory party.
Kle 4 has given you the perfect answer and I fully endorse his comments
A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.
It is theoretically possible. It depends if the EU are cooperative to the remain cause.
A question that I have not seem come up often in speculation of a referendum is whether they would make it binding or not. IIRC the AV referendum act contained provisions stating that the results must be implemented according to schedules already prepared. The EU referendum act contained no such provisions therefore was, legally, only advisory. Would anyone, assuming for the sake of argument a bill could even get through parliament, dare try to insist that the result must be implemented?
Binding forever if it gives the right answer even if by one vote, advisory if not?
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.
It is theoretically possible. It depends if the EU are cooperative to the remain cause.
I don't think there's any chance of resurrecting Cameron's deal. Macron thinks the EU shouldn't have negotiated with Cameron to begin with.
The retirement/firing of Dacre may prove to be crucial in this whole process.
The shift in tone from the Mail does not, at present, seem to diminished those calling for May to go any (whether they are explicit or implicit - eg demanding she change course or else unspecified threat). To get something through either significant numbers of Labour MPs need to back it, or the number of Tory rebels needs to be low enough to be countered by a handful from other parties. Is there any indication the strength of feeling leading the agitators to do what they are doing can be modulated by believing things like the shift in tone from the Mail indicate the country and party will, in fact, accept May's plans, and therefore back down?
Is that true? If so, I'm sorry Stewart, but that's a really dickish thing to do.
There is a pathetic cretin. He's not in hospital though.
He was obviously referring to the adult who'd arranged it rather than the child, but it was still a very stupid comment to post.
What sort of parent would use a picture of their seemingly very ill child in a hospital bed to promote the people's vote campaign? Let kids form their own views on political issues as they get older!
But as you say even though the comment is clearly directed at the tweeter who did the above it will no doubt be construed as a reference to the ill child. Such is the nature of twitter.
Amber Rudd on Newsnight says you'd have to have Remain on the ballot paper in a People's Vote.
It needs to be a repeat of the original referendum (Leave/Remain) but with much better knowledge of the implications of each and an up-to-date electoral roll. The Leave option will be "no deal" assuming the referendum is being called because May's deal has been rejected in parliament.
That is the key problem with a second referendum. It has to be fair and independently decided on the wording, margins, etc
That's why I think a straight repeat would be the least contentious.
I don't agree. That would be hugely divisive. All options are necessary
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
You said straight repeat and we know remainers like to suggest as the elderly die the young vote will overtake them. In our household that would be 2 remain votes lost
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
OK It would be Mrs May's deal (that has been rejected by parliament) versus remain. A straight choice. Leave (in name only) or Remain. It wouldn't be fair to have no deal on the ballot paper as well as that would split the leave vote.
Surely the argument should be we have already voted to leave - so remain has already been rejected by the people.
So give the people's vote campaign what they say they have been asking for for the last few months - a vote on the deal.
Mrs May could then argue here is your vote on the deal - back my deal or its no deal? She might well win easily when push comes to shove - with a dollop of project fear mark II. The people's vote crowd could hardly complain - they will have their vote on the deal.
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.
Or you could just use AV and save £150 million on having to hold a second vote - and let the councils have the money instead to fund social care. Why not overturn the two most recent national referendums in one go?
I am quite sure he would be referring to the person posting the message a cretin*, and while that is itself a poor thing to be doing and absolutely needless there is a danger in overdoing the criticism by suggesting he was calling the child a cretin, which looks a lot like deliberately misinterpreting things even more hostilely than deserved. See also comments of Corbyn seized upon, over egged, and thus being ineffective even when the comments deserved criticism.
*should he confirm he meant the child I'll withdraw that
However, simply calling people who disagree with you cretins is ill-mannered and unbecoming. What's worse is it is entirely ineffective. It is the politics of the playground. And not Secondary School. Sorry not directed at kle...
He needs to come back and spend some more time on this site so we can re-civilize him
If there are more than 2 questions on a new referendum ballot paper, would AV be used to establish the winner if no option gets more than 50% on first preferences? Because with 3 options it's quite likely that each would get around a third of voters supporting it.
If you're aiming for maximum legitimacy it's probably better to do two rounds. I know that's mathematically identical (assuming no changes of mind) but it makes it easier for non-nerds to understand, which is important since both the losing sides will want to say they woz robbed.
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.
Or you could just use AV and save £150 million on having to hold a second vote - and let the councils have the money instead to fund social care. Why not overturn the two most recent national referendums in one go?
I'd have thought if you did two rounds you'd have some serious economies of scale: One mailing, one polling card, etc etc.
Generally I'd support AV at times like this but dim people getting angry at politics is actually causing serious real-world damage, some of it quite expensive, so if two rounds helps get the process through a few more of their thick skulls then it's probably a decent investment.
I'd have thought if you did two rounds you'd have some serious economies of scale: One mailing, one polling card, etc etc.
Generally I'd support AV at times like this but dim people getting angry at politics is actually causing serious real-world damage, some of it quite expensive, so if two rounds helps get the process through a few more of their thick skulls then it's probably a decent investment.
Just to flesh out the AV Dimwit Problem, imagine you get something like this: * Remain 45 * No Deal 35 * Deal 20
Now imagine the Deal second preferences split 50/50, so * Remain 55 * No Deal 45
That's a perfectly clear and reasonable result, but the Facebook posts your racist uncle will be sharing the next day will affect not to understand what second preferences are or why they matter and say that Leave got 55% of the vote, and were robbed by some gerrymandering politician's trick.
Obviously fuckwits are gonna fuckwit and you shouldn't go *too* far to accommodate these people, but we're talking about a movement that has already produced a political assassination, so it seems sensible to make things clearer if you can. In this case you can head it off by doing the same thing over two rounds, which gives you a nice, clear final decision with no voting-system witchery.
Comments
You cannot remove an option
And when you say straight repeat that would mean only those eligible to vote the last time.
I suppose Stewart Jackson is probably one of those people who hunts comments on YouTube videos looking for people to disagree with. Maybe we'd find deep in the comments on a BBC Philharmonic performance of Ode to Joy Stewart Jackson hurling invective at someone expressing their pleasure at being able to listen to the piece while washing the dishes.
Civility is not the be all and end all of course, but it is nice, however until there's a proper cost to it people will generally get away with it.
"No deal" and remain would be the only viable options. There would be no others.
Straight repeat would not mean only those eligible to vote last time! It would be a straight repeat of the wording but the electorate has moved on. Some have died and some have come of age. (I know you are kidding).
At present there may be an offer.
1. Fudge
2. Long Grass
3. Can Kick
Maybe an option for unicorns.
If TM has a deal that is on the ballot paper
There really is no need for any of this - if Parliament doesn't want May's plan, or no deal, they can demand other things be tried. They just have the not unreasonable desire for democratic cover, but if you are going for democratic cover then how can it be fair to exclude the options you do not want. Either you want to ask the people for their view or you don't. If you don't want to risk the public picking the wrong option, don't ask them at all.
1. SM + CU for UK
2. FTA for GB, SM + CU for NI
3. EFTA for GB, SM + CU for NI
4. Remain
5. No Deal
AV would be used with the lowest ranked option getting knocked out at each stage until only 2 Remained and the option that got over 50% is the Brexit or Not Brexit we get.
That way nobody could complain and every option is covered including the backstop and the only FTA acceptable to the EU
But a 52 - 48 remain would be a disaster and chaos would continue indefinitely
But which biscuit?
You are trying to make t favourable to remain and that would not cut it
Everyone would have to be open to the three options otherwise it would be invalid
https://twitter.com/MSmithsonPB/status/1054486966803156993
The original 52 - 48 leave was done in ignorance of the issues and options. A 52 - 48 remain now would be in the knowledge of the issues and options and would be final.
https://twitter.com/youngvulgarian/status/1054375812726747137
What’s the Remain option in this scenario btw? Cameron’s “reformed” EU is in the bin isn’t it, so straight rerun isn’t even theoretically possible.
Have a relaxing evening everyone
Good night folks
Good night all.
But as you say even though the comment is clearly directed at the tweeter who did the above it will no doubt be construed as a reference to the ill child. Such is the nature of twitter.
So give the people's vote campaign what they say they have been asking for for the last few months - a vote on the deal.
Mrs May could then argue here is your vote on the deal - back my deal or its no deal? She might well win easily when push comes to shove - with a dollop of project fear mark II. The people's vote crowd could hardly complain - they will have their vote on the deal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5OUmoa9rME
Also there's no harm in having an extra week to argue about things once you know what the top two are.
Generally I'd support AV at times like this but dim people getting angry at politics is actually causing serious real-world damage, some of it quite expensive, so if two rounds helps get the process through a few more of their thick skulls then it's probably a decent investment.
* Remain 45
* No Deal 35
* Deal 20
Now imagine the Deal second preferences split 50/50, so
* Remain 55
* No Deal 45
That's a perfectly clear and reasonable result, but the Facebook posts your racist uncle will be sharing the next day will affect not to understand what second preferences are or why they matter and say that Leave got 55% of the vote, and were robbed by some gerrymandering politician's trick.
Obviously fuckwits are gonna fuckwit and you shouldn't go *too* far to accommodate these people, but we're talking about a movement that has already produced a political assassination, so it seems sensible to make things clearer if you can. In this case you can head it off by doing the same thing over two rounds, which gives you a nice, clear final decision with no voting-system witchery.
We can even compare if someone voted in previous elections and this one.
African American early vote in NC was well down in 2016 compared to 2012 and so signalled disaster for Clinton.