Viewing 8 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #2791

      elly
      Participant

      Back in 2016 we were asked:

      Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

      Back in the day, did you understand the question?

      And have people’s expectations evolved beyond that simple question that we were all asked two years ago?

    • #2793

      amy
      Participant

      How about the 2011 referendum?

      Did anyone vote / not vote in the 2011 alternative vote referendum and now wish they’d voted differently?

      Now that you look at the make up of the Conservative and Labour front benches, with almost no chance for a third nationwide party, do you think that first past the post is serving the country well?

      • #2800

        jess13
        Participant

        How about the 2011 referendum?

        Did anyone vote / not vote in the 2011 alternative vote referendum and now wish they’d voted differently?

        Now that you look at the make up of the Conservative and Labour front benches, with almost no chance for a third nationwide party, do you think that first past the post is serving the country well?

        Be careful what you wish for. Fpp may not be great but there are flaws in the proportional representation system. Due to another thread I looked into the Israeli government and the Knesset (the nearest equivalent to our House of Commons) which is elected by PR. No party has ever had a majority and the balance of power and the ability to bring down government has been in the hands of small fringe parties, one of the reasons why religious zealots or other extremists can sway policy. The nearest comparison we’ve got at the moment is the DUP. In the FPP scenario and the PR system both are vulnerable when there is no overall majority but that is going to happen more in the PR system.

        • #2803

          amy
          Participant

          I think I’d generally be happy with more coalitions. The coalition govt was far more functional than the last three years.

          The uk referendum was on alternative vote, and wales and Scotland use the regional additional member format, which in general isn’t as fragmented as the Israeli system of (I think) whole country PR.

          But it would’ve been interesting to see what govt would’ve formed if the 2015 election had happened under PR; a grand coalition, a minority govt or a Con/ukip/duo coalition

    • #2794

      andypandy
      Participant

      It meant that Cameron’s massive gamble spectacularly failed and we’re all going to have to pay the cost and the political death of ukip is little balm to the pain.

      • #2795

        Aly
        Participant

        It’s also meant, according to the news, that the UKs economic growth has been behind the Eurozone’s in 5 of the past 7 qurters since the vote.

        That’ll show them…

        • #2799

          sammy
          Participant

          It’s also meant, according to the news, that the UKs economic growth has been behind the Eurozone’s in 5 of the past 7 qurters since the vote.

          Which may well have happened anyway. Perhaps Blair’s era of everyone must have degree, regardless of what it is etc.. is impacting the economy more and more; less manufacturing, innovation etc.. Services are fine, but running call centres that try to compete with India or Eastern Europe on cost isn’t going to put much money in the treasury long term.

    • #2796

      Aly
      Participant

      The question was easy to understand but totally flawed because there was no official position on what leaving the EU would mean.

      It is like a bunch of drunk people who have just come out the pub voting to get a taxi without first deciding where they want to go. A year later there is no agreement about what to tell the driver or willingness to get back out the cab.

    • #2797

      Bear
      Participant

      I understood the question.

      I’ve never been so surprised as when the result was announced.

      But probably not as surprised as Mr Cameron.

      I was very surprised when Mr Cameron resigned but probably shouldn’t have been.

      I haven’t been surprised at all by the way that the politicians have gone about delivering on the leave vote.

    • #2798

      chrisr
      Participant

      I understood the question. It was ‘I’m an arrogant and feckless Prime Minister who would gamble the physical and economic safety of future generations in the hope it will further my political career. However the gamble’s on you because I’m rich so will be fine regardless. Does anyone trust me?’

      And I understand the answer. An advisory referendum. Major constitutional change is not decided on a simple one-vote-can-swing-it majority. Brexit won, just. I believe this was no basis to trigger Article 50 in exactly the same way that a narrow loss would not have meant business as usual. As it seems we’re going through with this farce (at least for a few years before we rejoin) Brexit just winning means Brexit just. Stay in the single market but let them have their blue passports.

    • #2801

      Div
      Participant

      Interesting question.

      As far as I can tell, it’s complete historical revisionism to claim that it was clear that a vote to leave meant leaving the CU and SM. That point was totally ambiguous on the day of the vote.

      I believe people knew well enough what they were voting for. Unfortunately I think they didn’t know, indeed couldn’t have known, that it wasn’t deliverable through Brexit.

    • #2802

      dommy
      Participant

      Yes, I understood the question. The problem was it was the wrong question put to people who did not understand enough of the issues to make an informed decision.

      It would be a bit like a brain surgeon asking me if he should perform a certain procedure on a patient. I don’t know anything about brain surgery so how can I say, “Yes” or “No”.

      It can be argued that this is little different to voting in a General Election – perhaps most people do not understand the issues at election time. The difference is that if you feel the country is going in the wrong direction, there is a chance to change things every five years. No such chance after leaving the EU. I reckon it will be a generation or more before there might be a chance of re-joining.

      Since the vote for Brexit a lot has come out that was not mentioned during the campaign and some of the statements/views of the Leave campaign have fallen by the wayside –

      https://www.theguardian.com/politics/ng-interactive/2018/mar/28/11-brexit-promises-leavers-quietly-dropped?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

      Some things were lies but the Remain campaign were a shambles.

    • #2804

      erick
      Participant

      The Remain campaign was sh*t but the main problem was that the government organised a referendum on a proposal which they were not in favour of. That meant the government did not need to take ownership of what happened in the event of ‘yes’ and argue for one particular variant.

      This gave an opportunity for Leave to make different and inconsistent promises to different demographics to the extent of employing companies like Cambridge Analytica to psychologically profile voters based on Facebook data and create customised lies designed to appeal to their prejudices.

      What is needed is a second referendum on the actual negotiated deal.

      • #2805

        goon
        Participant

        How could that possibly work? The eu will offer the worst deal imaginable, knowing that if rejected the UK remains in the eu and it won’t need to cut its budget like it is proposing for the next term of financial planning.

Viewing 8 reply threads

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

[snax_content]