Road rules1 min ago
Revoke Brexit On Day One......
101 Answers
https:/
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Well I do admire the clarity of our non dem friends but as we know there will not be an election before Halloween I assume she means she'll apply to rejoin in the unlikely even they get elected.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There are plenty of polls that indicate the claim I'm making, eg:
https:/
As can be seen, the latest poll in this series actually has the sample slightly against a second referendum.
I know we disagree on the point of whether polls are evidence at all, but taken in their proper context and with due care not to read the headline figures too dogmatically they are perfectly valid evidence.
Also, I don't agree at all that "And no, even if we made a major presumption that the entire country has changed their minds,democracy still needs to be honoured". By definition, in that extreme scenario it would not have been. Because democracy must be based primarily on honouring the wishes and interests of the electorate *now*, rather than yesterday.
Again, I concede that this is a point on which we may never agree, but even if you don't agree can you at least concede that there's a rational case to be made that votes cannot be held to be forcibly binding? If people are given an opportunity to vote, and they vote yesterday all against and today all for a particular viewpoint, precedence would clearly, rationally, be given to today's vote.
https:/
As can be seen, the latest poll in this series actually has the sample slightly against a second referendum.
I know we disagree on the point of whether polls are evidence at all, but taken in their proper context and with due care not to read the headline figures too dogmatically they are perfectly valid evidence.
Also, I don't agree at all that "And no, even if we made a major presumption that the entire country has changed their minds,democracy still needs to be honoured". By definition, in that extreme scenario it would not have been. Because democracy must be based primarily on honouring the wishes and interests of the electorate *now*, rather than yesterday.
Again, I concede that this is a point on which we may never agree, but even if you don't agree can you at least concede that there's a rational case to be made that votes cannot be held to be forcibly binding? If people are given an opportunity to vote, and they vote yesterday all against and today all for a particular viewpoint, precedence would clearly, rationally, be given to today's vote.
I think "no deal" is a bit of a misnomer... as really, it means many, many individual deals, which surely is better? We don't have to go along with those which are not in our best interests.
However- we are well past that now, and the biggest damage being done to this country, is the delaying and uncertainty. I doubt anyone believes it is accidental, clearly Parliament think we made the wrong choice. But either way, to go against the most democratic vote that has happened in my lifetime (and probably yours...) would be just suicidal.
Even if you don't like the ultimate answer.... would you be this objective about it, if Remain had won? It really does look like you are coming up with every possible reason- no matter how farfetched and irrational, as long as it suits your own purpose.
How about the majority....? Why do they not matter?
However- we are well past that now, and the biggest damage being done to this country, is the delaying and uncertainty. I doubt anyone believes it is accidental, clearly Parliament think we made the wrong choice. But either way, to go against the most democratic vote that has happened in my lifetime (and probably yours...) would be just suicidal.
Even if you don't like the ultimate answer.... would you be this objective about it, if Remain had won? It really does look like you are coming up with every possible reason- no matter how farfetched and irrational, as long as it suits your own purpose.
How about the majority....? Why do they not matter?
Also, just to clarify, I suggested that your apology rang hollow because you said that
// I have never intended anything as a "personal attack" and I can only apologise if it looks that way. It may be because I (irrationally, obviously) would expect a scientist to think in a rational way. //
which I interpreted, not unfairly I think, to mean that you apologised if calling me/my argument irrational came across as a personal attack, but not for calling it irrational in the first place.
// I have never intended anything as a "personal attack" and I can only apologise if it looks that way. It may be because I (irrationally, obviously) would expect a scientist to think in a rational way. //
which I interpreted, not unfairly I think, to mean that you apologised if calling me/my argument irrational came across as a personal attack, but not for calling it irrational in the first place.
You may not be interested in polls, but for the rest of us they form a useful picture of how the views of the public have, or may have, changed since then. My own interpretation, incidentally, is that they haven't changed by *much* (and certainly, not nearly enough to be confident that the result would be different in a hypothetical second referendum).
Leaving that aside:
dannyk: "Surely [votes being not forcibly binding] depends on the remit of the poll." -- unless and until the UK rules otherwise, it's part of our constitution to say that all Acts of Parliament are more or less equal. It's consistent with that position to extend it to all votes in general being equal.
Pixie: // However- we are well past that now, and the biggest damage being done to this country, is the delaying and uncertainty. //
I agree that the continual delay is damaging, but not that it is the "biggest" damage. Again, evidence from multiple sources, including the UK government, continues to show that No Deal exit would be damaging on an even greater scale than the current uncertainty. It's not unreasonable, therefore, to prefer an uncertain future to a certain disaster (if you'll excuse the hyperbole).
I would add, too, that I would still accept a way forward that finds a pragmatic and sensible deal to negotiate our exit -- and then, hopefully, puts that further deal back to the people. A second "ratification referendum" was part of the original plan, for many high-profile Leave campaigners.
Leaving that aside:
dannyk: "Surely [votes being not forcibly binding] depends on the remit of the poll." -- unless and until the UK rules otherwise, it's part of our constitution to say that all Acts of Parliament are more or less equal. It's consistent with that position to extend it to all votes in general being equal.
Pixie: // However- we are well past that now, and the biggest damage being done to this country, is the delaying and uncertainty. //
I agree that the continual delay is damaging, but not that it is the "biggest" damage. Again, evidence from multiple sources, including the UK government, continues to show that No Deal exit would be damaging on an even greater scale than the current uncertainty. It's not unreasonable, therefore, to prefer an uncertain future to a certain disaster (if you'll excuse the hyperbole).
I would add, too, that I would still accept a way forward that finds a pragmatic and sensible deal to negotiate our exit -- and then, hopefully, puts that further deal back to the people. A second "ratification referendum" was part of the original plan, for many high-profile Leave campaigners.
I don't accept your assessment of the rationality of my arguments. Or again, if I can return to the point, simply saying this does not make it so. As far as I can see, my arguments have a far greater grounding in British history, in British constitutional law and convention, and in long-standing historical democratic principles across the world, than you are giving them credit for.
// I have noticed how often you use.... it is generally accepted.... polls show.... many people.... research shows.... etc etc
I take it you are not all that confident of your own opinion? X //
Allowing my opinion to be informed by evidence and other people's researches doesn't undermine it. But I'm sure you already knew that. :)
Opinions can hardly be devalued if they are based on evidence, and I can hardly expected to gather all that evidence for myself.
And, yes, numbers do matter to me.
I take it you are not all that confident of your own opinion? X //
Allowing my opinion to be informed by evidence and other people's researches doesn't undermine it. But I'm sure you already knew that. :)
Opinions can hardly be devalued if they are based on evidence, and I can hardly expected to gather all that evidence for myself.
And, yes, numbers do matter to me.
It's a disgrace that politicians in 2015-2016 made promises that they either did not intend to keep, or found themselves unable to. But my answer to that would be to not make such statements promises in the first place, rather than to stick to promises regardless of circumstances. If a promise is a bad promise then keeping it is worse than breaking it -- but then, making it in the first place was a mistake.
// ... we all know stats can be found, or research to support whatever somebody wants to believe. //
No doubt it can be found, but it can still be assessed afterwards. Different research is of different qualities, and different volumes.
To turn it around a little, if the statement that "research can be found to support any position" is used to support the idea that such research can therefore be safely ignored, what would be the point in any such research at all?
As a separate point, it's not even true. There have, to date, been no leaks from government suggesting that a No Deal Brexit would be glorious for the UK and disastrous for the EU. There have been few polls showing anything other than a tight and persistent, close to 50:50 divide between Leave and Remain, and such drifts as there have been still fall within the margin for error. Economic studies suggesting that Brexit would be beneficial are few and far between and are usually shown to be fundamentally flawed.
No doubt it can be found, but it can still be assessed afterwards. Different research is of different qualities, and different volumes.
To turn it around a little, if the statement that "research can be found to support any position" is used to support the idea that such research can therefore be safely ignored, what would be the point in any such research at all?
As a separate point, it's not even true. There have, to date, been no leaks from government suggesting that a No Deal Brexit would be glorious for the UK and disastrous for the EU. There have been few polls showing anything other than a tight and persistent, close to 50:50 divide between Leave and Remain, and such drifts as there have been still fall within the margin for error. Economic studies suggesting that Brexit would be beneficial are few and far between and are usually shown to be fundamentally flawed.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.