PM Boris forms a government

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Agreed, the article concludes that:

Claim

The 2016 EU referendum was the largest democratic exercise in the UK’s history.

Conclusion

Not quite. More people voted in the 1992 general election. It also had a higher turnout rate, as did other elections in the 20th century.

Enough ... let's discuss Mr Johnson and Government.

Bless.....

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Your statement collapses exactly at the point you say “almost”

Not really. It’s a small mandate, but one none the less.

You wouldn’t describe a party winning a general election by 1% as having an overwhelming mandate on the basis of high turnout.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

Not really. It’s a small mandate, but one none the less.

You wouldn’t describe a party winning a general election by 1% as having an overwhelming mandate on the basis of high turnout.

No, but as the link provided kindly provided by Ianch99 points out. On a single issue.....not a party manifesto that contains all kinds of tosh. But on a single clear issue.

Clear and overwhelming direction was given.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Clear and overwhelming direction was given.

If it was clear with a definition of what leave meant, we would have left by now. It was ambiguous which led the Conservative Party to negotiate internally for two years before even negotiating with the EU.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

No, but as the link provided kindly provided by Ianch99 points out. On a single issue.....not a party manifesto that contains all kinds of tosh. But on a single clear issue.

Clear and overwhelming direction was given.

So it’s not the biggest mandate, except where you redefine it to remove larger mandates for arbitrary reasons?

Very Brexit. We’ve had enough of experts.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Nope: https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-refer...atic-exercise/

Can we just drop the "we won, you lost" crap? This stuff is just designed to wind people up. We are where we are ..

But from your link

This is not correct, if you interpret “largest democratic exercise” as the number of people participating in a vote. 33,551,983 people cast a vote in the referendum—which was 72% of all people registered to vote.

Not all people registered to vote were eligible to vote in the referendum.
FullFact (or should that be Not Quite Full Fact

You can’t vote in the referendum if you’re under 18, even in Scotland, where people that age could vote in the independence referendum.
And you can’t vote if you’re an EU citizen living here, unless you’re from Ireland, Malta or Cyprus.

Link

More than three million citizens from other EU countries are eligible to vote in the European elections on 23 May, but the UK Government requires them to submit a voter declaration form in order to do so.

That changes the 72% turnout figure quite a bit.

Different elections/votes often have different eligibility criteria. EG Local elections vs election of MP.

Compare all this with the less than 7,000 in favour of a Welsh Assembly, with 50.3% vs 49.7% split, on a 50.1% turnout. Not exactly overwhelming.
Link

Originally Posted by Chris

More or less.

And 48-52 would have resulted in us remaining in the EU just as emphatically. It was a referendum with a binary question, no quorum and no supermajority required. As we have been over many, many times.

Incidentally, the reason the team is allowing Brexit discussion here is because for the most part it is presently relevant to Boris Johnson’s “new broom” approach to government and Brexit.

We aren’t about to allow the thread to collapse into endless pointless repetition of all the old, old arguments about the legitimacy of the referendum, the mandate afforded by the result or whether “nobody voted for X”.

So let’s try and keep things on track, please.

And could you image the outrage if Cameron prorogued Parliament to push through joining the Euro and becoming part of the Schengen Area, stating "it was in or out, you knew what you were voting for"?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Agreed, the article concludes that:

Claim

The 2016 EU referendum was the largest democratic exercise in the UK’s history.

Conclusion

Not quite. More people voted in the 1992 general election. It also had a higher turnout rate, as did other elections in the 20th century.

Enough ... let's discuss Mr Johnson and Government.

Wrong. The Referendum was direct democracy. The election was representational democracy; the latter should implement the result of the former.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

If it was clear with a definition of what leave meant

How many times does it need to be explained? A definition of what Leave “ meant” was not asked for and therefore not required. What Leave “ means” is subjective, obviously.

But “leave” itself is not subjective. Which is what Johnson is saying.

We leave, no matter what, no matter what way.

It was ambiguous which led the Conservative Party to negotiate internally for two years before even negotiating with the EU.

Ball cocks......there is nothing ambiguous about the question on the ballot sheet.

Politicians have subsequently tried very hard and successfully to make it and ambiguous, but the question was yes or no, nothing ambiguous about that.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

So it’s not the biggest mandate, except where you redefine it to remove larger mandates for arbitrary reasons?

Very Brexit. We’ve had enough of experts.

Sorry, do those words make a point in your head?

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

And could you image the outrage if Cameron prorogued Parliament to push through joining the Euro and becoming part of the Schengen Area, stating "it was in or out, you knew what you were voting for"?

Yes, but we have to imagine that, as it hasn’t happened........................

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Pierre

How many times does it need to be explained? A definition of what Leave “ meant” was not asked for and therefore not required. What Leave “ means” is subjective, obviously.

But “leave” itself is not subjective. Which is what Johnson is saying.

We leave, no matter what, no matter what way.


Ball cocks......there is nothing ambiguous about the question on the ballot sheet.

Politicians have subsequently tried very hard and successfully to make it and ambiguous, but the question was yes or no, nothing ambiguous about that.

---------- Post added at 18:33 ---------- Previous post was at 18:32 ----------


Sorry, do those words make a point in your head?

Voting against "Remain" was unambiguous and clear cut. People voted "No" to Remain. "Leave" was based upon core principles. The "Remain" side want to overturn each and every one of them. Whichever of one or more of those core principles a "leave" voter based their decision is aimed at being overturned. Therefore 100% of the Leave vote is trying to be overturned.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

Sorry, do those words make a point in your head?

One you clearly can’t answer. I’ll settle for that as success.

Originally Posted by Hugh

And could you image the outrage if Cameron prorogued Parliament to push through joining the Euro and becoming part of the Schengen Area, stating "it was in or out, you knew what you were voting for"?

Just to clarify ... are you proposing such a scenario unfolding after a referendum?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

One you clearly can’t answer. I’ll settle for that as success.

Whatever helps you sleep at night.

[Julian]

So much animosity

I usually enjoy reading input ffom both sides but this is silly......

[Carth]

'sigh' crap and repeats on the TV, crap and repeats on here . . I'm off back gaming