Brexit never? Britain can still change its mind, says Article 50 author

[Stupooey]

15 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

Yes but 72% voted which makes it one of the highest turn-outs for many years. Maybe I'm leaping to conclusions but I suspect many of the 28% who didn't vote would of been in the CDE demographic group (low income, typically right-wing, anti-immigration etc) and judging by the polls would of more likely voted to leave anyhow making the margin to leave much higher.

 

 

 

The main reason for the high turnout was the number of first-time voters (and I'm not talking about the 18 year olds), most of whom voted to leave and who came primarily from the CDE group. This also goes a long way to explaining why the opinion polls got it so wrong, as pollsters tend to omit people who say they have never voted in any general election from their figures, on the assumption that they will not vote this time round either. Referendum results tend to be weighted in favour of those who want change, as such people are more likely to make the effort to vote than those who are content with the status quo. This is the reason referendums to effect major changes, such as amendments to constitutions, typically require a 2 to 1 majority.

[Khun Han]

10 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

The main reason for the high turnout was the number of first-time voters (and I'm not talking about the 18 year olds), most of whom voted to leave and who came primarily from the CDE group. This also goes a long way to explaining why the opinion polls got it so wrong, as pollsters tend to omit people who say they have never voted in any general election from their figures, on the assumption that they will not vote this time round either. Referendum results tend to be weighted in favour of those who want change, as such people are more likely to make the effort to vote than those who are content with the status quo. This is the reason referendums to effect major changes, such as amendments to constitutions, typically require a 2 to 1 majority.

 

Evidence for the above please.

[Chelseafan]

33 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

The main reason for the high turnout was the number of first-time voters (and I'm not talking about the 18 year olds), most of whom voted to leave and who came primarily from the CDE group. This also goes a long way to explaining why the opinion polls got it so wrong, as pollsters tend to omit people who say they have never voted in any general election from their figures, on the assumption that they will not vote this time round either. Referendum results tend to be weighted in favour of those who want change, as such people are more likely to make the effort to vote than those who are content with the status quo. This is the reason referendums to effect major changes, such as amendments to constitutions, typically require a 2 to 1 majority.

Yes but there was also a big increase in 18-24's who would typically of voted to remain. Interestingly if you look at the poll data leading up to the referendum, all had it neck and neck surveying circa 2000 people. The  only one to get it right was Panelbase who surveyed over 5000 people. Maybe the sampling was just too small. It's a shame that there isn't any data specifically on first time voters - well none that I can find anyhow.

 

 

 

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Evidence for the above please.

The evidence for the above is widely available hence there's no point in making posters do extra work to prove their point, just to find things you know already exist. Ditto the demographics of Brexiteers are widely understood, why else do you think the remaining group is working to inject common sense to correct the decision. 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/09/one-one-promises-and-predictions-brexiteers-are-collapsing

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/24/the-areas-and-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

The evidence for the above is widely available hence there's no point in making posters do extra work to prove their point, just to find things you know already exist. Ditto the demographics of Brexiteers are widely understood, why else do you think the remaining group is working to inject common sense to correct the decision. 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/09/one-one-promises-and-predictions-brexiteers-are-collapsing

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/24/the-areas-and-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won

Now, apart from being less intelligent, leavers have no common sense either? A typically arrogant remoaner stance. 

Edited November 12, 2017 by nauseus

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

Now, apart from being less intelligent, leavers have no common sense either? A typically arrogant remoaner stance. 

It's not a matter of "now", it has been that way since the vote and the demographics have proved that.

[nauseus]

2 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

It's not a matter of "now", it has been that way since the vote and the demographics have proved that.

Which demographic studies display common sense?

 

You insult with both arrogance and ignorance!

[simoh1490]

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Which demographic studies display common sense?

 

You insult with both arrogance and ignorance!

There is no reliable and sensible measure for common sense, as common sense might suggest!

[nauseus]

11 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

There is no reliable and sensible measure for common sense, as common sense might suggest!

YOUR WORDS: "It's not a matter of "now", it has been that way since the vote and the demographics have proved that".

 

Make your mind up time!

 

 

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

YOUR WORDS: "It's not a matter of "now", it has been that way since the vote and the demographics have proved that".

 

Make your mind up time!

 

 

I have no time for word games on this or any other subject, debate facts or debate alone.

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

I have no time for word games on this or any other subject, debate facts or debate alone.

Well you started it!

[Khun Han]

6 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

The evidence for the above is widely available hence there's no point in making posters do extra work to prove their point, just to find things you know already exist. Ditto the demographics of Brexiteers are widely understood, why else do you think the remaining group is working to inject common sense to correct the decision. 

 

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/09/one-one-promises-and-predictions-brexiteers-are-collapsing

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2016/jun/24/the-areas-and-demographics-where-the-brexit-vote-was-won

 

Your first link doesn't deal with voting patterns and your second one doesn't address any of the claims made by Stoopoey.

 

Good to see you 'liking' your own posts by the way .

[Khun Han]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

Well you started it!

 

Expect him to start whingeing soon, and reporting your posts for misquoting/misinterpreting.

[dundee48]

28 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Expect him to start whingeing soon, and reporting your posts for misquoting/misinterpreting.

Yes,i had a few of them,if you can`t beat them insult them,if that doesn`t work report them.Hahahahaha.

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Your first link doesn't deal with voting patterns and your second one doesn't address any of the claims made by Stoopoey.

 

Good to see you 'liking' your own posts by the way .

I sort of picked up from your earlier comment that you think I am poster chomper whatever the name is, can I suggest you ask the mods to pursue that one because they can check the IP address etc and put your mind at rest.

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Expect him to start whingeing soon, and reporting your posts for misquoting/misinterpreting.

FWIW I haven't reported you or anyone else on this forum for anything, not ever, even before I changed my name, I do not believe in doing so.

 

Second, both you and your emoticon clicking chum would do a lot better in this debate if you stopped trying to attack posters and instead started to formulate sustainable arguments that you can support with fact, that way people might pay attention to what you have to say. 

[simoh1490]

2 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Your first link doesn't deal with voting patterns and your second one doesn't address any of the claims made by Stoopoey.

 

Good to see you 'liking' your own posts by the way .

I posted those links to support MY claim regarding demographics, not the claims made by other posters!

[Khun Han]

46 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I sort of picked up from your earlier comment that you think I am poster chomper whatever the name is, can I suggest you ask the mods to pursue that one because they can check the IP address etc and put your mind at rest.

 

You've already admitted that you used to post under a different user name, so you're currently posting in defiance of the forum rules:

 

 

Determined characters like you get banned from fora and come back as a Hydra (with multiple user names). I know all about it. I used to be a global moderator on a medical forum that was relentlessly spammed by snake oil salesmen. We learned to spot them from a mile off.

[Scott]

4 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

You've already admitted that you used to post under a different user name, so you're currently posting in defiance of the forum rules:

 

 

Determined characters like you get banned from fora and come back as a Hydra (with multiple user names). I know all about it. I used to be a global moderator on a medical forum that was relentlessly spammed by snake oil salesmen. We learned to spot them from a mile off.

Please stop with the off-topic remarks.   Duplicate accounts are not permitted, however, some posters do, for a variety of reasons, discontinue one account and a new one is permitted. 

 

We are quite well aware of the status of the member.  

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, simoh1490 said:

FWIW I haven't reported you or anyone else on this forum for anything, not ever, even before I changed my name, I do not believe in doing so.

 

Second, both you and your emoticon clicking chum would do a lot better in this debate if you stopped trying to attack posters and instead started to formulate sustainable arguments that you can support with fact, that way people might pay attention to what you have to say. 

 

How disingenuous. You complained (under your old chiang mai user name) about  me editing one of your posts. I pointed out to you that it was the forum software that had taken the embedded quotes out of your post when I clicked on 'quote' (it still does this by the way). You repeated your complaint in a faux-ignorant manner, and I received a suspension.

 

And here you are, back again under a differnt user name, whingeing about the way that your debating opponents are treating your posts.

11 minutes ago, Scott said:

Please stop with the off-topic remarks.   Duplicate accounts are not permitted, however, some posters do, for a variety of reasons, discontinue one account and a new one is permitted. 

 

We are quite well aware of the status of the member.  

 

OK, fair enough Scott. But just be aware of that particular poster's behaviour, as highlighted by this reply I was about to make when I saw the notification for your reply:

 

"Under your old user name of chiang mai, you got me suspended by complaining about me editing one of your posts that I quoted. I politely pointed out to you that it was the forum software which had removed the embedded quotes from your post (it still, to this day, does this), but you falsely carried on accusing me of deliberately editing your post and I received a suspension."

Edited November 12, 2017 by Khun Han

[simoh1490]

I take it, from what you've written, that you have no further arguments to make about Brexit? That being the case perhaps the thread should be closed?

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

I take it, from what you've written, that you have no further arguments to make about Brexit? That being the case perhaps the thread should be closed?

 

There is, rather obviously, a huge amount of honest and dishonest debate still to be had about brexit. Which type of debate are you up for?

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

There is, rather obviously, a huge amount of honest and dishonest debate still to be had about brexit. Which type of debate are you up for?

I'm always ready to engage in sensible debate on Brexit or indeed a range of other subjects so please feel free, now that you've satisfied yourself I am not chomper and I'm not posting in violation of the rules. But if what is to come is anything like what has just been, I may not hang around. 

[Khun Han]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

I'm always ready to engage in sensible debate on Brexit or indeed a range of other subjects so please feel free, now that you've satisfied yourself I am not chomper and I'm not posting in violation of the rules. But if what is to come is anything like what has just been, I may not hang around. 

 

The debate on this subject is always going to be feisty. I don't mind anyone giving as good as they get. The two things that turn me off are dishonesty and and blind, ignorant condescension (and I admit that I am guilty, at times, of responding in kind). You were honest enough to introduce your re-entry to these debates by acknowledging your previous contributions. Kudos to you for that. Let's all argue with passion, but let's not create a warzone .

[chrissables]

On 11/11/2017 at 11:51 AM, mfd101 said:

Of course 'they' keep accounts. You can't run a corner grocery store without accounts. The accounts are published regularly for all to see.

 

Talk about paranoia! "They're all liars. I just know it!"

Please post a link to the EU signed off accounts.

[simoh1490]

It's a tricky area, the accounts do exist and they have been signed off by internal auditors but never by external independent auditors:

 

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/news/article_en.cfm?id=201507231419

 

http://ec.europa.eu/euratom/accounts.html

[Stupooey]

17 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Evidence for the above please.

Where do I start? Detailed analysis of voting patterns is in the public domain, much of it done by universities (Loughborough, Kent and the LSE spring to mind). Whilst not naive enough to take treat any single source as gospel, when the same results are repeated it becomes a matter of using common sense to join up the dots. Pollster post mortems to explain why a 48-52 'poll of polls' prediction became 52-48 on the day generally centre on turnout. The mobilisation of the so-called "dormant" voters I mentioned (I have seen a figure of 3 million quoted, although this appears rather high) is one example. Flooding in generally pro-remain London, which caused a relatively low turnout there is another. The polling date - just after the end of the university term, meaning many students who had registered at their term-time address found themselves unable to vote - is a third. I was not trying to make any particular point - after all, many people do not bother to vote in general elections because the result in their constituency is a foregone conclusion - but was just trying to find some explanation as to why the polls got it so wrong.

[Baerboxer]

On 11/10/2017 at 4:27 PM, allane said:

So, the Brexiteers have three choices:

1.Admit that their campaign was grossly misleading: Britain can't have its cake and eat it too. Accept whatever terms the EU offers, because time is on the EU's side, and that becomes more obvious every day.

2.Admit that the whole idea of Brexit was a big mistake, and that they knew, or should have known that Britain would now be where it finds itself, and support a second referendum.

3.  Brexit means Brexit, and if that means crashing out of the EU with nothing, that is what they had always wanted in any case.

They are going to appear naive, duplicitous or stupid whichever one of these choices they support, but of the three, I think the third leaves them with the least egg on their faces.

 

It was all a Tory pantomime with guest appearances from UKIP.

 

Although May tried and was only thwarted by the Supreme Court at great tax payer expense, to circumvent parliamentary process and the constitution in enacting Article 50 she and her government have been very quite about Britain's right to change it's mind.

 

Tusk and Juncker (perhaps surprisingly) both reiterated their pleasure should Britain decide to do this.

 

But May, despite having very limited shelf life left, isn't brave enough to do this as she knows being truthful would rip the Tory party apart. And Corbyn won't do anything because he's always been anti EU and wants out. 

 

Once again the politicians are more interested in their own ambitions than those of the country and people.

[Kenegg]

On 11/11/2017 at 2:16 PM, Chelseafan said:

They do keep accounts, it's just that they never get signed off :)

So no proof that what you are saying is true...Fake News....

[simoh1490]

1 hour ago, Kenegg said:

So no proof that what you are saying is true...Fake News....

The proof is in post 176 above.