Factbox: UK opposition Labour Party sets terms for backing May on Brexit

[dick dasterdly]

15 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Surely the time to change a disastrous set of rules, or a disastrous decision, is before they have been implemented; before it's too late?

 

Agreed; almost.

 

Many people who voted Leave last time now realise the full consequences of leaving and would now vote to remain; and some who voted Remain have also changed their minds since. So I would have a third choice; withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.

 

Have the referendum run on a single transferable vote system. People vote for their first and second choices and if no first choice has 50% plus 1 of the votes then eliminate the first preference with the fewest votes and transfer the second preference of those ballot papers to give an overall winner.

 

Surely the democratic way of settling this once and for all?

So the second choice would have to be remain in some way?

 

How on earth do you think this would be acceptable?

[7by7]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

So the second choice would have to be remain in some way?

 

I thought that my explanation of how the single transferable vote system would work in this instance was clear; obviously not.

 

The ballot paper would have three options.

1. Leave with the negotiated deal.
2. Leave with no deal.
3. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.

People would mark their first and second preferences, leaving the third option blank. Which of these options people put as their first and second preferences is, of course, entirely up to them. If the majority put option 1 and option 2 as their first and second choices then option 3 would be eliminated and the second preference votes on those papers allocated to option 1 or 2 as indicated on the ballot paper.  One of those options would then win and we would leave; either with the negotiated deal or no deal.

 

Furthermore, unless 50% plus 1 vote for option 3 as their first preference, it is probable that one or other of the leave options would win. I'm sure you'd agree that very few, if any, Brexiteers would choose remain as their second preference!

 

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

How on earth do you think this would be acceptable?

Why wouldn't it be?

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

So the second choice would have to be remain in some way?

 

How on earth do you think this would be acceptable?

I recommend single choice; remain

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I recommend single choice; remain

Don't be sad Hakapolita! It was just a joke. There, there. OK now? Are you a Brexiter? Lovely. Come and sit down and tell me all about it....

[rixalex]

On 2/9/2019 at 4:16 PM, 7by7 said:

 

I thought that my explanation of how the single transferable vote system would work in this instance was clear; obviously not.

 

The ballot paper would have three options.

1. Leave with the negotiated deal.
2. Leave with no deal.
3. Withdraw Article 50 and remain in the EU.

People would mark their first and second preferences, leaving the third option blank. Which of these options people put as their first and second preferences is, of course, entirely up to them. If the majority put option 1 and option 2 as their first and second choices then option 3 would be eliminated and the second preference votes on those papers allocated to option 1 or 2 as indicated on the ballot paper.  One of those options would then win and we would leave; either with the negotiated deal or no deal.

 

Furthermore, unless 50% plus 1 vote for option 3 as their first preference, it is probable that one or other of the leave options would win. I'm sure you'd agree that very few, if any, Brexiteers would choose remain as their second preference!

 

Why wouldn't it be?

Criticism most often leveled at the 2016 vote was that the issue was too complex and that people didn't know what they were voting for.

 

So this new vote you are proposing, in which people aren't simply making a binary choice, in or out, but have to specify their first and second choice, has in it: option 1: a 600 plus page document, (how many people are seriously going to read that?) Option 2: leave with no deal which really is the definition of venturing into the unknown. And option 3, stay as we are, although it won't be stay as we are, because from that point forward, the EU would know that if Britain wants to push for change in the EU, the EU can shrug its shoulders and say, "what are you going to do about it?". We would be powerless.

 

Anyway, if we are trashing the 2016 vote outcome, as you wish, absolutely no reason why a new vote wouldn't be subjected to the exact same criticism, if not far more. And having set the precedent, that referendums need not be implemented before people seek to overturn them, i see no reason whatsoever why the losers of a new vote will simply accept the outcome, especially if the losing side are the leavers, although i wouldn't trust remainers to respect the decision either. End result: a complete waste of time.

[SheungWan]

On 2/9/2019 at 10:01 AM, Loiner said:

There are certainly some parallels between his Marxist ideals and the eventual EU superstate. So many of the left wing are ardent Remainers, he has to toe the Momentum line in Parliament. He probably hates having to side with the Remainer Tories supporting big business interests. But he’ll continue lying in either direction if it could possibly put Labour in power.

Every single Hard Left organisation in the UK is anti-EU. So sorry to disrupt your made-up baloney.

[Grouse]

16 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Every single Hard Left organisation in the UK is anti-EU. So sorry to disrupt your made-up baloney.

This guy is utterly out of touch ????

[elliss]

On 2/8/2019 at 10:26 AM, sawadee1947 said:

Finally, he has something to say. I doubt, that May would accept, but probably she has to LEARN HER LESSON

 

         Silence is golden , for the ill informed . 

[sawadee1947]

10 hours ago, elliss said:

 

         Silence is golden , for the ill informed . 

Don't give up, laddie. Try hard. 

[sanemax]

On 2/8/2019 at 10:32 AM, Baerboxer said:

 

That's why England and the UK evolved Representative Parliamentary Democracy.

 

To avoid one winning 'referendum" being hailed as something that must be accepted as a never can change, or challenge, rule that must be obeyed; even when most know it's wrong.

Once the UK has left the E.U , you can then ask for another referendum , asking whether the UK population wants to join the E.U , but , lets get leaving out the way first

[sanemax]

On 2/9/2019 at 10:01 AM, Loiner said:

So many of the left wing are ardent Remainers, 

 

Thats just what the lefty media want you to believe , the fact is that the majority of Labour held seats , their Labour voters voted to leave 

[Loiner]

Thats just what the lefty media want you to believe , the fact is that the majority of Labour held seats , their Labour voters voted to leave 

I understand that and agree with you. I don’t regard the vast majority of LAB voters as Left wingers. The party apparatchiks are, right down to local constituency officials, but not the actual voters.
Maybe next GE they will finally realise that LAB is not for workers and vote for another party. I thought it was obvious for years, but the whole Brexit conversation and how Corbyn the LAB MPs & party despise them, has finally opened their eyes.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app