The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

[John William]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	How strange, thats about the predicted result from polls before the referendum. Looks like nothing changed at all & certainly nothing like a super majority

So why leave then ?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	John William
	So why leave then ?

Because that was the outcome of the referendum, a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote. I guess many people don't understand 'once in a lifetime', as attention span so low these days people think 2 years is a lifetime

There was no vote to join so why need a super majority to leave? There was some noise earlier in the thread from the minority voters.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	There was no vote to join

Funny how so many people are happy to accept a decision made by Tories for Tory reasons back in the nineties, as if they were actually Lib Dems in disguise.

[marton]

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Because that was the outcome of the referendum, a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote. I guess many people don't understand 'once in a lifetime', as attention span so low these days people think 2 years is a lifetime There was no vote to join so why need a super majority to leave? There was some noise earlier in the thread from the minority voters.

Remember that time Nigel Farage said 52-48 votes should lead to second referendum?

Source

	Quote:	marton
	Remember that time Nigel Farage said 52-48 votes should lead to second referendum? Source

Who cares what that self-promoting gobshite says about anything?

	Quote:
	Who cares what that self-promoting gobshite says about anything?

Large swathes of the electorate, sadly.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Because that was the outcome of the referendum, a once in a lifetime opportunity to vote. I guess many people don't understand 'once in a lifetime', as attention span so low these days people think 2 years is a lifetime

Who ever said that the "advisory, non-binding" referendum was a "once in a lifetime opportunity to vote"?

There is absolutely no reason not to hold another referendum. As I've argued earlier in this thread, and as a panel of legal experts recently stated in an open letter, the most democratic option would be to ask the people again for their opinion.

[k_and_e]

	Quote:
	Who ever said that the "advisory, non-binding" referendum was a "once in a lifetime opportunity to vote"? There is absolutely no reason not to hold another referendum. As I've argued earlier in this thread, and as a panel of legal experts recently stated in an open letter, the most democratic option would be to ask the people again for their opinion.

i think that this is actually the least democratic option as you overrule the result of a referendum.


the most democratic option would be to implement a binding referendum in law and based on that have the option for a second referendum. kind of the Swiss way.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	Who ever said that the "advisory, non-binding" referendum was a "once in a lifetime opportunity to vote"? There is absolutely no reason not to hold another referendum. As I've argued earlier in this thread, and as a panel of legal experts recently stated in an open letter, the most democratic option would be to ask the people again for their opinion.

I wondered when you were going to have the balls to reply to me

The vote was advisory to parliament who voted to accept the advice of the people. It's how it works in the UK

Absolutely no reason to hold a second, third or forth referendum until you get the result you favour.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	Absolutely no reason to hold a second, third or forth referendum until you get the result you favour.

So not even strong evidence of the people having changed their mind?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	So not even strong evidence of the people having changed their mind?

Opinion polls are not very different to before the referendum, just goes to show people lie when asked a direct question. Anonymous voting is something else. The samples are in the thousands rather than millions so subject to huge error.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I wondered when you were going to have the balls to reply to me The vote was advisory to parliament who voted to accept the advice of the people. It's how it works in the UK Absolutely no reason to hold a second, third or forth referendum until you get the result you favour.

Exactly this. Plus Parliament voted 6 to 1 to hold the referendum in the first place.

The ironic thing is that the very same people who have been screaming that the referendum was "advisory and non-binding" are now calling for a second one.

I was less interested in what a new, overall referendum would bring (it was pointless then and it's pointless now) and more interested in the polls that asked more detailed questions about FMOP, Northern Ireland and the final trade deal.

These are the questions people should have been asked at the time.

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	I wondered when you were going to have the balls to reply to me

That's a very odd response, implying (as it does) that I have avoided answering previous posts of yours... what's that all about?

I note you haven't answered my question about the "once in a lifetime" vote. You made that bit up, didn't you?

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	The samples are in the thousands rather than millions so subject to huge error.

You just proved that you don't understand statistics, and in particular P-values. Your statement is very flawed.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	The ironic thing is that the very same people who have been screaming that the referendum was "advisory and non-binding" are now calling for a second one.

And your point is?

If there's a second referendum, the government would have two sets of non-binding advice from the general population that it supposedly represents. If the referendum results were opposite, that would set up an interesting situation: should the government place more weight on one of the results (for example, the more recent one, where the voters are better informed), or would they just ignore the people and carry on implementing their own agenda (as they are doing now)?

	Quote:	k_and_e
	i think that this is actually the least democratic option as you overrule the result of a referendum. the most democratic option would be to implement a binding referendum in law and based on that have the option for a second referendum. kind of the Swiss way.

So you disagree with the concept of holding regular General Elections, then. I mean, once the people have voted for their local representation and thereby indirectly for the government and its Prime Minister, they've made their choice and that's the way things should remain (pun intended) forever, right?

[bowlie]

	Quote:	k_and_e
	i think that this is actually the least democratic option as you overrule the result of a referendum.

Are you saying that a General Election every 5 years (or less) is not democratic?

I would say the average voter is much better informed now than then. Seeing as the majority then was so small (and the turnout so low) it makes sense to repose the question, or to seek public endorsement of the deal that (may be) eventually reached by HMG.

If HMG cannot reach an agreement by January then the people should be asked if they prefer remain or leave without an agreement.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	That's a very odd response, implying (as it does) that I have avoided answering previous posts of yours... what's that all about? I note you haven't answered my question about the "once in a lifetime" vote. You made that bit up, didn't you? You just proved that you don't understand statistics, and in particular P-values. Your statement is very flawed. And your point is? If there's a second referendum, the government would have two sets of non-binding advice from the general population that it supposedly represents. If the referendum results were opposite, that would set up an interesting situation: should the government place more weight on one of the results (for example, the more recent one, where the voters are better informed), or would they just ignore the people and carry on implementing their own agenda (as they are doing now)?

	Quote:	Urs Max
	I don't think that's true, look up Lex Bonny. While its applicability has been reduced by a lot and replaced by a successor regulation tax reduction (perhaps complete elimination) for up to ten years is still used to increase CH's attractiveness.

17 Cantons which is the majority in anybodies book.

I wonder if StirB & 22 yards have the balls to apologise.

	Quote:	Urs Max
	Unfortunately your skepticism was well warranted, not everybody's got the spine to own up.

	Quote:
	Lump-sum taxation applies to personal tax for individuals only and isn't available to corporations to reduce corporate tax, as already stated.

As far as a once in a lifetime vote, it wast 'the biggest decision in out lifetime', very clearly laid out https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ins-eu-7406590
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN0Y81VK

	Quote:	fatmanfilms
	17 Cantons which is the majority in anybodies book. I wonder if StirB & 22 yards have the balls to apologise. As far as a once in a lifetime vote, it wast 'the biggest decision in out lifetime', very clearly laid out https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ins-eu-7406590 https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-br...-idUKKCN0Y81VK

What on Earth are you on about???

Could you post something relevant to Brexit, please? And can you substantiate your claim that the referendum was strictly limited to a "once in a lifetime" chance?

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:
	What on Earth are you on about??? Could you post something relevant to Brexit, please? And can you substantiate your claim that the referendum was strictly limited to a "once in a lifetime" chance?

Sure, I have balls , I made a mistake with the wording, however 'the biggest decision in our lifetime' is a pretty strong statement from the Prime Minister. It clearly implies that you won't get another chance anytime soon.

[fatmanfilms]

	Quote:	bowlie
	I would say the average voter is much better informed now than then. Seeing as the majority then was so small (and the turnout so low) it makes sense to repose the question, or to seek public endorsement of the deal that (may be) eventually reached by HMG. If HMG cannot reach an agreement by January then the people should be asked if they prefer remain or leave without an agreement.

No deal is better than a bad deal, it's been stated all along. No need for a deal or a second vote without a deal.