Off Topic OLOF's political thread

Don’t really care just pleased it passed

 

I'm very surprised that so many travelled to London supporting a vote without the clarity of what the question would be but, that aside, if the result of your vote (the more likely one) is 50.5% - 49.5% in favour of the deal would that be enough for you?

 

50.1 - 49.9 would be enough for me

 

It might well be....

 

That's less of a margin than 52% - 48% which wasn't enough for you to accept so stop talking bollocks


You flakes will never accept losing, and will carry on creating more and more uncertainty.

 

As opposed to the certainty of rushing through a 96 page act in 10 days to stick to an artificial deadline before having a year of agreed terms whilst trying to negotiate a Free Trade agreement (that on average take about 4-5 years) with out the knowledge of whether we crash out on WTO terms or extend and extend whilst also trying to negotiate other free trade agreements with no offered direction for where and how we're going to align our economy.

You mean that kind of certainty?

 

We have had the leave/remain vote and leave won. If there is another vote it should be leave with deal/leave with no deal, remain has already been voted on and defeated. I voted remain in the first vote but accept the decision of the majority.

 

There's not much difference between the new deal (which is much better) and May's deal, which was debated at length, so wouldn't take much time to read it if they actually got off their arses and did some work for a change.


All this 'can't rush it through' bollocks is just another delaying tactic and increases the current uncertainty.

 

Exactly.

 

The ****s have had three and half years to sort it, parliament dont want a deal they want to stay, what part of that dont you understand?

 

Bunch of remoaner undemocratic ****s, that's all they are.

17.4m people voted to leave, the Government and the EU have agreed a deal for us to leave, and still it's not enough.

And yet they won't agree to an election either

Just get the ****ing thing done ffs

 

You sound as pissed off as me over the whole saga

 

There's not much difference but it's much better.....

Also Theresa never published her Withdrawal Agreement Bill.

 

Not much difference in as much as the previous deal had 600 pages, all of which were debated at length so no need to go over the thing yet again, and the new one has 96 pages - so what the **** is there that needs so much scrutiny?

And much better because the backstop has been removed.


And you knew what I meant so stop trying to be a smart ****.

 

I heard about this on Twitter. Quebec had a referendum on whether they should become sovereign in 1995.
I suspect that all referendum will put one side against the other and cause animosity but this one had a 93.5% turnout and was won by the smallest of margins.
It's worth reading what the government did subsequently but I took particular note that
"There should be a clear question, and a clear majority"
So those saying that the out or in question was too specific are wrong. From experience it does need to be that specific.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Quebec_referendum

Sorry, forgot the link

And here is the question:

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

 

To be honest I think there's a difference between specific and clear.

The question that narrowly lost is

Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995?

If anything that question is too specific but not clear.
It reminds me of the old school exams when the answer was easy it was decoding the question that was hard.

There was a def a case for the referendum to have had a super majority but I suspect Brexiteers will not want this time round.

The trouble with this referendum was there should have been a debate and plan on how to leave and then when the option of what that was it could be put to the electorate.

We had a verdict on an idea. A point raised by

and as David Davis once said on referendums back in 2002

David Davis: There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is
not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool. The Chairman of the Public Administration Committee, who is no longer in the Chamber, said that Clement Attlee—who is, I think, one of the Deputy Prime Minister's heroes—famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators. We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums of the type the Deputy Prime Minister is proposing are the worst type of all.
Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

 

Here's the whole point raised and not just the 8 seconds made in 2011.

Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con): It is amazing how united the Conservative party has been so far today. We had a Eurosceptic statement from the Prime Minister and then a Eurosceptic speech from the Foreign Secretary, so it can only be the Liberal Democrats who are inveigling us down the path of unrighteousness and taking us away from supporting the motion. The Foreign Secretary made six points that must have been written for him by the Liberal Democrats, because he is

24 Oct 2011 : Column 108

far too clever a man to have thought of them for himself, because they do not really add up. I shall go through them.

The Foreign Secretary made two points that were essentially trivial—too trivial for a man of his standing. They were, first, that there was no manifesto commitment for a referendum. However, manifestos can deal only with what is known at the time; they cannot deal with things that have not yet arisen. The crisis in the eurozone and the changes that could come from it were not known with clarity at that point, so it is now right to think beyond the manifesto to what the next steps are. That point can therefore be discarded.

The Foreign Secretary then said that we had passed an Act of Parliament to deal with when we could have referendums, and so we did; but again, this House knows many things, but it is not omniscient. It cannot take care of every occasion that may arise when a referendum may be a good idea or every occasion when the British people—whom we should trust—may want one. So, those two points go.

The other two points that do not add up to much were, first, that a three-way referendum is confusing. However, that is not a problem because the motion calls for a Bill in the next Session, which can deal with any confusion. We can, in our wisdom, work out how to phrase a referendum—or series of referendums, if necessary —that will be understandable.

Martin Horwood: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and we always enjoy his speeches, but will he clear up some confusion about the proposed three-way referendum? Will it use the alternative vote system or first past the post? The motion is not entirely clear.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me an extra minute—it is kind of Gloucestershire to give something to Somerset for once. That issue can be dealt with in the legislation. Indeed, we could have two referendums. As it happens, it might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed.

The fourth point that did not work was that the EU was all or nothing. However, it is already not all or nothing: we already have opt-outs and so forth. There are therefore two remaining points—as those who are good mathematicians will have worked out—that we need to look at. One was that we are dealing with this issue in a crisis and this is therefore the wrong time: “When a man’s house is burning down, you send in the fire brigade.” Quite right. But then, when he wants to hire someone else’s house nearby to find fresh accommodation, they can set the terms of the tenancy. That is the position that we are in with the European Union—a very strong negotiating position, which we should maximise.

We should also note that we cannot solve our financial crisis until we have freed ourselves from the yoke of European regulation. Only this weekend, we have seen that Tesco is going to take on fewer part-time people because of a directive from Brussels. Are we really going to deny our citizens growth because Brussels wants to put a further yoke on them?

Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD): Is my hon. Friend aware that one of Tesco’s most profitable areas is the part of eastern Europe that is in the European Union?

24 Oct 2011 : Column 109

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Tesco, great company that it is, is also very popular in Thailand, whose application for membership of the European Union I am currently unaware of.

The Foreign Secretary made a final point that we would lose opportunities by going for a referendum now. Well, of course we would not; we would gain them. We are negotiating on the budget for the next few years on the basis of an absolute majority and a one-vote veto. This is not the intermediate budget. Our position is quite strong.

As I see it, we have a wonderfully united Conservative party, upset by the Liberal Democrats. I admire the Liberal Democrats. They are good, honest people, but, when push comes to shove, getting a proper relationship with the European Union is more important than the coalition. If the Liberal Democrats want to go into a general election saying, “Let’s have more rules from Brussels and from Mr Barroso”, let them try it. We shall see how many seats they win on that basis. It is for us Back Benchers to say to Her Majesty’s Government: “Stiffen your sinews, summon up the blood and imitate the action of a tiger, for that is how you should behave towards our European partners, not like Bagpuss.”

Hon. Members: Hurrah!

8.11 pm

 

I'm not sure everyone is clear about where the referendum came from. It dates back to 2010 when UKIP drew so many votes from the Tories that they needed the Lib Dems to form a government. This is, of course, after Labour oversaw the melt down in our economy.
In their 2015 Manifesto Cameron promised an in/out referendum before the end of 2017:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/11/david-cameron-european-union-referendum-pledge
I deliberately linked the Guardian

They were elected with a large majority.

The Leave campaign during the referendum was almost irrelevant because you can see that there was a huge movement for leaving from 2010.

It again comes down to those who voted remain thinking they know everything and those who voted leave are stupid.

We will leave. No matter how many obstacles are put in the way it will happen because many of us have been waiting at least 10 years

 

I'm not sure the whole point contradicts the section I highlighted?