Brexit Deal agreed ( updated )

[Pans Jambo]

6 hours ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

This.

5th November would have been a more appropriate date.

?

[Pans Jambo]

1 hour ago, kawasakijambo said:

Just leave, and uphold the decision of the majority of the people.

 

It's called Democracy.

Arguably the will of the people has changed since a few details came to light. Democracy would be saying the government and parliment have tried and failed so let put it back to the people. 

Same result - Fine

remain wins - good job we checked

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, kawasakijambo said:

Just leave, and uphold the decision of the majority of the people.

 

It's called Democracy.

 

"As you know, referendums were never a part of the British system until the end of the 1970s. If you look at countries elsewhere which have referendums, Switzerland being the most notable example, where there are very clear understandings as to how they work, where it is normal to have a vote in principle and then a confirmatory vote on the detail--the former prime Minister of New Zealand said on the radio yesterday morning, that in New Zealand, they wouldn't dream of relying on a single vote in a referendum, they would always assume to have a vote in principle, and then a confirmatory vote when the detail had been worked out. We had no tradition of referendums."

 

Sir David Edward, 27 March 2019, to masters students at the University of Edinburgh Law School.

[Francis Albert]

14 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

"As you know, referendums were never a part of the British system until the end of the 1970s. If you look at countries elsewhere which have referendums, Switzerland being the most notable example, where there are very clear understandings as to how they work, where it is normal to have a vote in principle and then a confirmatory vote on the detail--the former prime Minister of New Zealand said on the radio yesterday morning, that in New Zealand, they wouldn't dream of relying on a single vote in a referendum, they would always assume to have a vote in principle, and then a confirmatory vote when the detail had been worked out. We had no tradition of referendums."

 

Sir David Edward, 27 March 2019, to masters students at the University of Edinburgh Law School.

The first EU referendum was in 1975, some time before the "end of the 1970s". (Did Sir David really not know that? Did none of his "masters students" correct him? ) I don't remember anyone suggesting there should be a "confirmatory referendum" back then. And if the 2016 referendum had produced the right, expected result there would have been no question of a "confirmatory referendum".

If Scotland votes yes in the next Indyref, can you imagine the reaction of the Nationalists to the suggestion of a "confirmatory referendum"? For that matter, why no "confirmatory referendum" after the 2014 vote?

And why does the famous Good Friday Agreement, in the event of a majority vote in a referendum to reunite Ireland, commit the UK to ceding Northern Ireland  to the Republic without any  "confirmatory vote"?

Edited April 11, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

Hi. He is smarter than you. So is every student I have interacted with in my programme. Elsewhere in the amazing talk he gave to us, he clarified that "well, there was a referendum to confirm we would stay in the EU—the first really serious referendum was the one on Scottish Devolution at the end of the 1970s".

 

Confirmatory referenda are not needed when the status quo is maintained, so the entirety of the rest of your post is pure silliness, from a silly man.

 

You are not clever, you are not insightful, and you are a failure.

 

Edit: As for the GFA, ask the drafters of the treaty.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Justin Z

[Francis Albert]

22 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Hi. He is smarter than you. So is every student I have interacted with in my programme. Elsewhere in the amazing talk he gave to us, he clarified that "well, there was a referendum to confirm we would stay in the EU—the first really serious referendum was the one on Scottish Devolution at the end of the 1970s".

 

Confirmatory referenda are not needed when the status quo is maintained, so the entirety of the rest of your post is pure silliness, from a silly man.

 

You are not clever, you are not insightful, and you are a failure.

 

Edit: As for the GFA, ask the drafters of the treaty.

 

So when he said (if your quote is accurate) that "referendums were never part of the British system until the end of the 1970s" Sir David was wrong. Or he meant to say "serious referendums" whatever that means?

 

And he meant to say when quoting others (or they meant to say) "referendums which produce a result changing the status quo"?

 

I think if Remain had won in 2016 some Leavers might have considered a confirmatory referendum might be justified once the effectiveness of Cameron's renegotiation of terms of membership (eg the "emergency brake" on immigration) had been demonstrated.

 

As for the GFA question,"ask the drafters of the treaty"? ... well, if you are going to accuse others of "sheer silliness" try not to be silly. At the least it shows that senior politicians and others in the UK and Ireland and their facilitators in the USA and elsewhere did not assume that in a referendum with huge consequences for the status quo a "confirmatory referendum" was necessary or desirable (or even as far as I know considered).

 

Same goes for Scottish Indyrefs.

 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Francis Albert

[ri Alban]

18 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So when he said (if your quote is accurate) that "referendums were never part of the British system until the end of the 1970s" Sir David was wrong. Or he meant to say "serious referendums" whatever that means?

 

And he meant to say when quoting others (or they meant to say) "referendums which produce a result changing the status quo"?

 

I think if Remain had won in 2016 some Leavers might have considered a confirmatory referendum might be justified once the effectiveness of Cameron's renegotiation of terms of membership (eg the "emergency brake" on immigration) had been demonstrated.

 

As for the GFA question,"ask the drafters of the treaty"? ... well, if you are going to accuse others of "sheer silliness" try not to be silly. At the least it shows that senior politicians and others in the UK and Ireland and their facilitators in the USA and elsewhere did not assume that in a referendum with huge consequences for the status quo a "confirmatory referendum" was necessary or desirable (or even as far as I know considered).

 

Same goes for Scottish Indyrefs.

 

 

 

You'll no be voting in Indyref 2. N.B.A. 

It's gonnae be hilarious when Scotland votes Yes, then rejoins the EU. All these Brit Hypocrites born in God's Country will be filling the Streets with tears and snorters.

[AlphonseCapone]

21 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So when he said (if your quote is accurate) that "referendums were never part of the British system until the end of the 1970s" Sir David was wrong. Or he meant to say "serious referendums" whatever that means?

 

And he meant to say when quoting others (or they meant to say) "referendums which produce a result changing the status quo"?

 

I think if Remain had won in 2016 some Leavers might have considered a confirmatory referendum might be justified once the effectiveness of Cameron's renegotiation of terms of membership (eg the "emergency brake" on immigration) had been demonstrated.

 

As for the GFA question,"ask the drafters of the treaty"? ... well, if you are going to accuse others of "sheer silliness" try not to be silly. At the least it shows that senior politicians and others in the UK and Ireland and their facilitators in the USA and elsewhere did not assume that in a referendum with huge consequences for the status quo a "confirmatory referendum" was necessary or desirable (or even as far as I know considered).

 

Same goes for Scottish Indyrefs.

 

 

 

 

Give it a rest, you're trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. 

[ri Alban]

26 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So when he said (if your quote is accurate) that "referendums were never part of the British system until the end of the 1970s" Sir David was wrong. Or he meant to say "serious referendums" whatever that means?

 

And he meant to say when quoting others (or they meant to say) "referendums which produce a result changing the status quo"?

 

I think if Remain had won in 2016 some Leavers might have considered a confirmatory referendum might be justified once the effectiveness of Cameron's renegotiation of terms of membership (eg the "emergency brake" on immigration) had been demonstrated.

 

As for the GFA question,"ask the drafters of the treaty"? ... well, if you are going to accuse others of "sheer silliness" try not to be silly. At the least it shows that senior politicians and others in the UK and Ireland and their facilitators in the USA and elsewhere did not assume that in a referendum with huge consequences for the status quo a "confirmatory referendum" was necessary or desirable (or even as far as I know considered).

 

Same goes for Scottish Indyrefs.

 

 

 

I'd vote every day. 

[ri Alban]

39 minutes ago, Francis Albert said:

So when he said (if your quote is accurate) that "referendums were never part of the British system until the end of the 1970s" Sir David was wrong. Or he meant to say "serious referendums" whatever that means?

 

And he meant to say when quoting others (or they meant to say) "referendums which produce a result changing the status quo"?

 

I think if Remain had won in 2016 some Leavers might have considered a confirmatory referendum might be justified once the effectiveness of Cameron's renegotiation of terms of membership (eg the "emergency brake" on immigration) had been demonstrated.

 

As for the GFA question,"ask the drafters of the treaty"? ... well, if you are going to accuse others of "sheer silliness" try not to be silly. At the least it shows that senior politicians and others in the UK and Ireland and their facilitators in the USA and elsewhere did not assume that in a referendum with huge consequences for the status quo a "confirmatory referendum" was necessary or desirable (or even as far as I know considered).

 

Same goes for Scottish Indyrefs.

 

 

 

Let's have a confirmative ref with No deal hard brexit verses A customs union and single market soft brexit. Both are brexit with no remain option.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

38 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Hi. He is smarter than you. So is every student I have interacted with in my programme. Elsewhere in the amazing talk he gave to us, he clarified that "well, there was a referendum to confirm we would stay in the EU—the first really serious referendum was the one on Scottish Devolution at the end of the 1970s".

 

Confirmatory referenda are not needed when the status quo is maintained, so the entirety of the rest of your post is pure silliness, from a silly man.

 

You are not clever, you are not insightful, and you are a failure.

 

Edit: As for the GFA, ask the drafters of the treaty.

 

 

Sorry to be pedantic Justin, but the referendum in 1975 was to see if the British people wanted to stay in the EEC, the formation of the EU was some 20 years in the future from the time of '75 referendum, and the EEC and the present day EU are two entirely different beasts, and that is part of the problem, because the British people didn't vote to join the EU, nor were they consulted about joining it, the EEC slowly but surely over the years just morphed into first the EC then later into the present day EU. 

Tony Blair promised the nation a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but then went back on his word, just like a true politician.

 

I have to dispute the claim that the first really serious referendum was the Scottish Devolution Referendum in 1979, as voter turnouts say differently.

The turnout for the Scottish referendum in 1979 was 63.72% (wiki figures, BBC figures 63.60%)

The turnout for the 1975 EEC referendum was 64.62% (wiki figures).

So more people per % of eligible voters thought the EEC referendum more important than the Scottish referendum, or at least that's what the figures are suggesting.

[Justin Z]

51 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Sorry to be pedantic Justin, but the referendum in 1975 was to see if the British people wanted to stay in the EEC, the formation of the EU was some 20 years in the future from the time of '75 referendum, and the EEC and the present day EU are two entirely different beasts, and that is part of the problem, because the British people didn't vote to join the EU, nor were they consulted about joining it, the EEC slowly but surely over the years just morphed into first the EC then later into the present day EU. 

Tony Blair promised the nation a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, but then went back on his word, just like a true politician.

 

I have to dispute the claim that the first really serious referendum was the Scottish Devolution Referendum in 1979, as voter turnouts say differently.

The turnout for the Scottish referendum in 1979 was 63.72% (wiki figures, BBC figures 63.60%)

The turnout for the 1975 EEC referendum was 64.62% (wiki figures).

So more people per % of eligible voters thought the EEC referendum more important than the Scottish referendum, or at least that's what the figures are suggesting.

 

I don't think you're being pedantic at all, mate. To give a little background: in addition to possessing a below average legal mind, I also type about 120 words per minute, so I essentially attempted to transcribe this conversation, and what I've quoted above is about as close to word-for-word as one can get without specialised equipment. Sir David is 84 and was a wonderful crafter of stories and insights but as an octogenarian had a tendency to ramble. I'm glad I went to the effort though to try to take everything he said down.

 

He never got into the details, in a talk about Brexit, of why he felt the '75 referendum wasn't "serious". He was there and keenly aware of the politics and law going on at the time, having by then been appointed a QC and I believe serving as Clerk of the Consultative Committee of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community, so I trust his judgement that it wasn't. If I had to venture a guess as to why, I'd say it was probably because he viewed it as a purely political exercise, with the result never in doubt based on support by politicians and the general public at the time. That would still be a guess though. Regardless, it's entirely an aside, and a derailment from the point of the original quote. A difference of four years in England/Britain's thousand year legal history is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme. It's okay to discuss reasonably and in good faith, of course, which is why you're getting a substantive response.

 

Putting the '75 vote in context with this anecdote he shared? Quite the contrast:

 

"This particular referendum, the Brexit referendum, was an attempt, a manifestly unsuccessful attempt, to unite the Conservative Party which had been divided since the 1970s. First suggested not by the stupid David Cameron but by the supposedly wise William Hague. I have it on good authority from someone who was there, that when it was suggested to him, that there ought to be a blocking minority, [or] minimum number of votes, [or] to provide all parts of the United Kingdom ought to vote before it would go through, [or] that voting might be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds, various provisions of that sort--and Cameron's insouciant answer was, 'I don't need any of that—I don't need any help to win, I always do.' A person as asinine as that as the Prime Minister of this country."

 

On that, we can hopefully all agree.
 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Justin Z

[Jambo-Jimbo]

15 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I don't think you're being pedantic at all, mate. To give a little background: in addition to possessing a below average legal mind, I also type about 120 words per minute, so I essentially attempted to transcribe this conversation, and what I've quoted above is about as close to word-for-word as one can get without specialised equipment. Sir David is 84 and was a wonderful crafter of stories and insights but as an octogenarian had a tendency to ramble. I'm glad I went to the effort though to try to take everything he said down.

 

He never got into the details, in a talk about Brexit, of why he felt the '75 referendum wasn't "serious". He was there and keenly aware of the politics and law going on at the time, having by then been appointed a QC and I believe serving as Clerk of the Consultative Committee of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community, so I trust his judgement that it wasn't. If I had to venture a guess as to why, I'd say it was probably because he viewed it as a purely political exercise, with the result never in doubt based on support by politicians and the general public at the time. That would still be a guess though. Regardless, it's entirely an aside, and a derailment from the point of the original quote. A difference of four years in England/Britain's thousand year legal history is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme. It's okay to discuss reasonably and in good faith, of course, which is why you're getting a substantive response.

 

Putting the '75 vote in context with this anecdote he shared? Quite the contrast:

 

"This particular referendum, the Brexit referendum, was an attempt, a manifestly unsuccessful attempt, to unite the Conservative Party which had been divided since the 1970s. First suggested not by the stupid David Cameron but by the supposedly wise William Hague. I have it on good authority from someone who was there, that when it was suggested to him, that there ought to be a blocking minority, [or] minimum number of votes, [or] to provide all parts of the United Kingdom ought to vote before it would go through, [or] that voting might be extended to 16- and 17-year-olds, various provisions of that sort--and Cameron's insouciant answer was, 'I don't need any of that—I don't need any help to win, I always do.' A person as asinine as that as the Prime Minister of this country."

 

On that, we can hopefully all agree.
 

 

Cameron was just the latest Tory leader to fall on the sword of European scepticism within the Tory party, which has seen several leaders fall on that particular sword over the years, in fact I can't recall a time in my lifetime (I'm in my late 50's) where Europe hasn't been an issue within the Tory party.

Cameron was an arrogant barsteward who thought that he was the chosen one to finally face down and shut up the Tory Euro sceptics and bring them into the fold, so to speak, and we know how that turned out.

 

[Victorian]

JRM still gurning about "the socialists" being involved.      Just **** off pal.    You are obsolete.

[CJGJ]

6 hours ago, kawasakijambo said:

Just leave, and uphold the decision of the majority of the people.

 

It's called Democracy.

Seems the Swiss don't agree with you as they are going to re run their referendum and for the same reasons ours should be re run..it's called DEMOCRACY

Time for the UK to follow suit

 

'The result of a nationwide referendum has been overturned for the first time in modern Switzerland's history.

The poll, held in February 2016, asked the country's voters whether married couples and co-habiting partners should pay the same tax.

Voters rejected the proposal, with 50.8% against and 49.2% in favour.

But the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run.'

 

The information provided to the electorate was "incomplete" and therefore "violated the freedom of the vote", the court ruled.

Edited April 11, 2019 by CJGJ

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, CJGJ said:

Seems the Swiss don't agree with you as they are going to re run their referendum and for the same reasons ours should be re run..it's called DEMOCRACY

Time for the UK to follow suit

 

'The result of a nationwide referendum has been overturned for the first time in modern Switzerland's history.

The poll, held in February 2016, asked the country's voters whether married couples and co-habiting partners should pay the same tax.

Voters rejected the proposal, with 50.8% against and 49.2% in favour.

But the supreme court has now voided the result on the grounds that voters were not given full information, and the vote must be re-run.'

 

The information provided to the electorate was "incomplete" and therefore "violated the freedom of the vote", the court ruled.

For the first time in modern history to be fair 

.. And they hold a lot of referendums in Switzerland

Edited April 11, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Francis Albert]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

You'll no be voting in Indyref 2. N.B.A. 

It's gonnae be hilarious when Scotland votes Yes, then rejoins the EU. All these Brit Hypocrites born in God's Country will be filling the Streets with tears and snorters.

I fear you have a very inflated view of how much non-Scots  Brits care about Scotland (whether Brit  hypocrites or not)

[Statts1976uk]

5 hours ago, Justin Z said:

Hi. He is smarter than you. So is every student I have interacted with in my programme. Elsewhere in the amazing talk he gave to us, he clarified that "well, there was a referendum to confirm we would stay in the EU—the first really serious referendum was the one on Scottish Devolution at the end of the 1970s".

 

Confirmatory referenda are not needed when the status quo is maintained, so the entirety of the rest of your post is pure silliness, from a silly man.

 

You are not clever, you are not insightful, and you are a failure.

 

Edit: As for the GFA, ask the drafters of the treaty.

 

 

Just to play Devil’s Advocate here with regards to your assumption that only changes to the status quo require confirmatory referendums, does that mean you believe we should have had one after the devolution referendum in 1997 that paved the way for a devolved Scottish parliament? This was obviously a significant change to how Scotland was governed.

Edited April 11, 2019 by Statts1976uk

[XB52]

5 hours ago, AlphonseCapone said:

 

Give it a rest, you're trying to cause an argument for the sake of it. 

That is all he  does. Not got a clue why he is allowed to troll this board with his shite but just Ignore him please.  Nobody bites and he will eventually get bored and piss off

[Francis Albert]

5 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Let's have a confirmative ref with No deal hard brexit verses A customs union and single market soft brexit. Both are brexit with no remain option.

Not the worst idea. At least it "respects the vote" which was the basis the great majority of MPs were elected on.

The only problem is that "No Deal" is not really an option. Whatever happens there will be a deal on the future trading relationship between the EU and the UK. It is a pity that three years after the vote there has been no substantive/meaningful discussion between the EU and UK on what that will be.

[Francis Albert]

1 hour ago, XB52 said:

That is all he  does. Not got a clue why he is allowed to troll this board with his shite but just Ignore him please.  Nobody bites and he will eventually get bored and piss off

I wouldn't hold your breath. I suspect I have been on this board and its predecessors for as long as anyone and have yet to receive any warning for trolling or any other infringement of board rules.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Justin Z]

10 hours ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Just to play Devil’s Advocate here with regards to your assumption that only changes to the status quo require confirmatory referendums, does that mean you believe we should have had one after the devolution referendum in 1997 that paved the way for a devolved Scottish parliament? This was obviously a significant change to how Scotland was governed.

 

While I don't think a confirmatory referendum would've been a bad thing, what I said in that post was that non-changes to the status quo don't require confirmatory referenda, which is a different statement than changes to the status quo require confirmatory referenda. Confirmatory referenda are just one protection to ensure major changes are what the people truly want. Others were mentioned in the post about Cameron's hubris--requiring a minimum percentage of the total electorate, not just those who turned out, to vote in favour of a change; requiring that all four components of the federal system vote affirmatively in favour of a change; instituting a blocking minority or requiring more than a simple majority threshold, etc.

 

In the specific case of the Scottish Devolution referendum, every single constituency voted in favour of the first question, more than 40% of the total electorate (almost 45%) voted in favour of the first question, and the Yes votes outnumbered No votes by nearly a three to one margin. There was also a somewhat confirmatory question in the referendum itself--whether the Parliament ought to be able to have tax-varying powers--and while that question was also answered Yes overall, there were two dissenting council areas and the margin was not nearly as great, coming in at less than two to one, but it was still pretty decisive.

 

But like I said, a confirmatory referendum after the Scotland Act 1998 had been drafted would not have been bad. If it had failed, or even passed by a narrow margin, it would have likely had a political effect on the content of the original Act.

[Unknown user]

10 hours ago, XB52 said:

That is all he  does. Not got a clue why he is allowed to troll this board with his shite but just Ignore him please.  Nobody bites and he will eventually get bored and piss off

He isn't a troll, trolls deliberately try to evoke a reaction.

This is just who FA is, a contrarian who seeks a chink in the armour of any argument, even the ones he agrees with. 

As you say, if you find it unrewarding to engage with him, just stop engaging. He is who he is, he's not going to change to suit posters he's never met. 

[Justin Z]

31 minutes ago, Smithee said:

He isn't a troll, trolls deliberately try to evoke a reaction.

This is just who FA is, a contrarian who seeks a chink in the armour of any argument, even the ones he agrees with. 

As you say, if you find it unrewarding to engage with him, just stop engaging. He is who he is, he's not going to change to suit posters he's never met. 

 

If that were all he did, it wouldn't be a problem. Microfocusing on a completely unrelated aside to the actual topic in order to assert an imaginary superiority over a knighted former judge of the ECJ because of a deep dissatisfaction with himself and his meaningless, sad life--as one example out of dozens--is what a troll does, with the added bonus that it drags a useful discussion off-topic. Pitiable or not, it's against the forum rules.

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Justin Z

[Unknown user]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

If that were all he did, it wouldn't be a problem. Microfocusing on a completely unrelated aside to the actual topic in order to assert an imaginary superiority over a knighted former judge of the ECJ because of a deep dissatisfaction with himself and his meaningless, sad life--as one example out of dozens--is what a troll does, with the added bonus that it drags a useful discussion off-topic. Pitiable or not, it's against the forum rules.

 

 

Yet he's never had a warning. The central point stands, if engaging is unrewarding, just stop engaging

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Smithee said:

 

Yet he's never had a warning. The central point stands, if engaging is unrewarding, just stop engaging

 

JKB, the bastion of even-handed, consistent application of rules.

 

While I agree with the essence of your central point, without 100% participation, it is impossible, and it shouldn't fall to the users anyway when there are rules that have presumably been put in place to take care of such nuisances.

[Unknown user]

8 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

JKB, the bastion of even-handed, consistent application of rules.

 

While I agree with the essence of your central point, without 100% participation, it is impossible, and it shouldn't fall to the users anyway when there are rules that have presumably been put in place to take care of such nuisances.

We're all in control of our own jkb experience. Until a couple of months ago I had more than 30 people on my ignore list, now I just throw manual dingies. It's cathartic to let irritation slip by - must be an age thing!

Edited April 12, 2019 by Smithee

[Francis Albert]

26 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

JKB, the bastion of even-handed, consistent application of rules.

 

While I agree with the essence of your central point, without 100% participation, it is impossible, and it shouldn't fall to the users anyway when there are rules that have presumably been put in place to take care of such nuisances.

Maybe I haven't had a warning because I don't break board rules, I don't for example criticise the Moderators for the way they moderate the board.

I am not clear why daring to comment on something you quoted (even if it apparently came from the mouth of a "knighted former judge of the ECJ") is dragging the discussion off topic but that is a matter of opinion. Banging on about the quality of life enjoyed (or not) by another poster on the other hand ...

 

 

Edited April 12, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Unknown user]

[ri Alban]

 

 

[Statts1976uk]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

While I don't think a confirmatory referendum would've been a bad thing, what I said in that post was that non-changes to the status quo don't require confirmatory referenda, which is a different statement than changes to the status quo require confirmatory referenda. Confirmatory referenda are just one protection to ensure major changes are what the people truly want. Others were mentioned in the post about Cameron's hubris--requiring a minimum percentage of the total electorate, not just those who turned out, to vote in favour of a change; requiring that all four components of the federal system vote affirmatively in favour of a change; instituting a blocking minority or requiring more than a simple majority threshold, etc.

 

In the specific case of the Scottish Devolution referendum, every single constituency voted in favour of the first question, more than 40% of the total electorate (almost 45%) voted in favour of the first question, and the Yes votes outnumbered No votes by nearly a three to one margin. There was also a somewhat confirmatory question in the referendum itself--whether the Parliament ought to be able to have tax-varying powers--and while that question was also answered Yes overall, there were two dissenting council areas and the margin was not nearly as great, coming in at less than two to one, but it was still pretty decisive.

 

But like I said, a confirmatory referendum after the Scotland Act 1998 had been drafted would not have been bad. If it had failed, or even passed by a narrow margin, it would have likely had a political effect on the content of the original Act.

 

Thank you Justin for your response, I do like to play Devil’s Advocate sometimes. I always try to encourage my students to think that way as well.

[Justin Z]

13 minutes ago, Statts1976uk said:

 

Thank you Justin for your response, I do like to play Devil’s Advocate sometimes. I always try to encourage my students to think that way as well.

 

Cheers, Statts! Couldn't agree more.

[AlimOzturk]

2 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

JKB, the bastion of even-handed, consistent application of rules.

 

While I agree with the essence of your central point, without 100% participation, it is impossible, and it shouldn't fall to the users anyway when there are rules that have presumably been put in place to take care of such nuisances.

 

It's best to just ignore the troll. Not easy when he is all over the most current and popular thread like a rash I know. 

 

He thinks he is some kind of intellect and is being controversial for the sake of it to wind folk up. He did the same on the FOH subject and it was then I delcided he is just an utter waste of time. 

 

He probably isnt breaking any rules though and it would be hard to prove that he is deliberately trolling. 

 

Shame as the thread on the whole has been full of good debate and differing opinions and he's just trying his best to ruin it. 

Edited April 12, 2019 by AlimOzturk

[AlphonseCapone]

On the other hand, FA agreed with me once and I was both pleased and confused. 

[ri Alban]

I don't see the big deal, FA has as much right to his views as everyone else. Whether he's at it or not.

[Francis Albert]

12 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

While I don't think a confirmatory referendum would've been a bad thing, what I said in that post was that non-changes to the status quo don't require confirmatory referenda, which is a different statement than changes to the status quo require confirmatory referenda. Confirmatory referenda are just one protection to ensure major changes are what the people truly want. Others were mentioned in the post about Cameron's hubris--requiring a minimum percentage of the total electorate, not just those who turned out, to vote in favour of a change; requiring that all four components of the federal system vote affirmatively in favour of a change; instituting a blocking minority or requiring more than a simple majority threshold, etc.

 

In the specific case of the Scottish Devolution referendum, every single constituency voted in favour of the first question, more than 40% of the total electorate (almost 45%) voted in favour of the first question, and the Yes votes outnumbered No votes by nearly a three to one margin. There was also a somewhat confirmatory question in the referendum itself--whether the Parliament ought to be able to have tax-varying powers--and while that question was also answered Yes overall, there were two dissenting council areas and the margin was not nearly as great, coming in at less than two to one, but it was still pretty decisive.

 

But like I said, a confirmatory referendum after the Scotland Act 1998 had been drafted would not have been bad. If it had failed, or even passed by a narrow margin, it would have likely had a political effect on the content of the original Act.

To get back on topic wouldn't it have been fair to at least suggest (as I don't think anyone did) in the devolution or eu referendum that a confirmatory referendum was necessary. Or at least desirable? Before the result obviously?,

Edited April 12, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Jamboelite]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

I don't see the big deal, FA has as much right to his views as everyone else. Whether he's at it or not.

They arent his views he just likes picking a fight.

 

And i agree with Smithee once you stop engaging and let irritation go its a much better place.

[Doogz]

3 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

To get back on topic wouldn't it have been fair to at least suggest (as I don't think anyone did) in the devolution or eu referendum that a confirmatory referendum was necessary. Or at least desirable? Before the result obviously?,

 

[ri Alban]

5 hours ago, Jamboelite said:

They arent his views he just likes picking a fight.

 

And i agree with Smithee once you stop engaging and let irritation go its a much better place.

It's an illness, he can't help it.

[ri Alban]

2 hours ago, Doogz said:

 

Anyone who thinks the brexiteers would have stopped fighting for another ref, if they'd lost, are full of shit. Just like indy, the scent of blood is there, and brexit was coming sometime in the future.

 

Scotland if they wanted, could be independent and rejoin the EU. And the UK would still be trying to leave. © someone from The National.

[ri Alban]

18 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Maybe I haven't had a warning because I don't break board rules, I don't for example criticise the Moderators for the way they moderate the board.

I am not clear why daring to comment on something you quoted (even if it apparently came from the mouth of a "knighted former judge of the ECJ") is dragging the discussion off topic but that is a matter of opinion. Banging on about the quality of life enjoyed (or not) by another poster on the other hand ...

 

 

Incorrigible!

[Francis Albert]

6 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Anyone who thinks the brexiteers would have stopped fighting for another ref, if they'd lost, are full of shit. Just like indy, the scent of blood is there, and brexit was coming sometime in the future.

 

Scotland if they wanted, could be independent and rejoin the EU. And the UK would still be trying to leave. © someone from The National.

You mean some leavers would not have accepted a remain vote and continued to fight on. Shocking!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

9 hours ago, Doogz said:

 

 

An edited 8 second clip from a much longer speech Rees-Mogg made on Monday 24 Oct 2011, nearly five years before the EU referendum in 2016 is hardly a ringing nor credible endorsement that Rees-Mogg backs a second referendum now.

 

Giving that politicians seem to chop and change their minds on a near weekly basis, is it any wonder that in the intervening 7 years since Rees-Mogg made that speech, he's changed his mind, it certainly doesn't shock nor surprise me, nor should it shock or surprise anyone, because anybody could find things which they all say, Rees-Mogg, May, Corbyn, Sturgeon, Cable etc etc etc only for them to backtrack or even deny they even said that years before.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/final-say-brexit-latest-conservative-mp-explain-speeches-second-referendum-a8477686.html

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Doogz]

10 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

An edited 8 second clip from a much longer speech Rees-Mogg made on Monday 24 Oct 2011, nearly five years before the EU referendum in 2016 is hardly a ringing nor credible endorsement that Rees-Mogg backs a second referendum now.

 

Not for a second am I suggesting JRM backs a 2nd referendum now - but have another look at the post I was replying to ....FA was suggesting nobody had mentioned a 2nd referendum before the results were in. The clip I've provided shows this was suggested prior to the result & by one of the main supporters of the leave campaign too!

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Doogz said:

 

Not for a second am I suggesting JRM backs a 2nd referendum now - but have another look at the post I was replying to ....FA was suggesting nobody had mentioned a 2nd referendum before the results were in. The clip I've provided shows this was suggested prior to the result & by one of the main supporters of the leave campaign too!

 

I'm afraid the clip you have provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 EU referendum.

 

The video clip of Rees-Mogg is from 24 October 2011 and was made during a five hour debate in the commons on whether to grant an EU referendum or not and was heavily defeated by 483 to 111.

Therefore how could Rees-Mogg be making suggestions about a second referendum before the results were in, when there wasn't a EU referendum in the first place, I know what people have done, they have seen this clip, seen the EU referendum debate caption added 2+2 together thinking it was during the 2016 EU referendum, but have ended up with the wrong year and the wrong debate.

 

Here is an article from the 25 October 2011 the day after Rees-Mogg video.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15425256

 

 

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by Jambo-Jimbo

[Doogz]

3 hours ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'm afraid the clip you have provided has nothing whatsoever to do with the 2016 EU referendum.

 

The video clip of Rees-Mogg is from 24 October 2011 and was made during a five hour debate in the commons on whether to grant an EU referendum or not and was heavily defeated by 483 to 111.

Therefore how could Rees-Mogg be making suggestions about a second referendum before the results were in, when there wasn't a EU referendum in the first place, I know what people have done, they have seen this clip, seen the EU referendum debate caption added 2+2 together thinking it was during the 2016 EU referendum, but have ended up with the wrong year and the wrong debate.

 

Here is an article from the 25 October 2011 the day after Rees-Mogg video.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15425256

 

 

 

1984 levels of Newspeak going on there - how you can claim a debate about a proposed EU referendum has nothing to do with the EU referendum simply by adding "2016" in front is frankly bizarre. 

It's fairly straightforward: JRM suggested a 2nd referendum in 2011, as you say before the 2016 referendum was even scheduled which also means this took place before the 2016 results were in.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

6 hours ago, Doogz said:

1984 levels of Newspeak going on there - how you can claim a debate about a proposed EU referendum has nothing to do with the EU referendum simply by adding "2016" in front is frankly bizarre. 

It's fairly straightforward: JRM suggested a 2nd referendum in 2011, as you say before the 2016 referendum was even scheduled which also means this took place before the 2016 results were in.

 

I'm not going to argue with you, I've made my point, as you have as well, it is clear that your view is entrenched as your second sentence clearly shows.

[Unknown user]

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

I'm not going to argue with you, I've made my point, as you have as well, it is clear that your view is entrenched as your second sentence clearly shows.

 

That's a shame, he makes a reasonable point and your retreat makes it look like you don't have an answer. 

 

JRM was talking about a future EU referendum, it seems a very weak argument to say "yeah but he didn't mean THIS future EU referendum"

[Mikey1874]

Second referedum is fine as long as Remain isn't an option. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

1 hour ago, Smithee said:

 

That's a shame, he makes a reasonable point and your retreat makes it look like you don't have an answer. 

 

JRM was talking about a future EU referendum, it seems a very weak argument to say "yeah but he didn't mean THIS future EU referendum"

 

I just didn't see the point in debating any further, because of course JRM mentioned a second referendum before the results were in because no referendum had taken place nor was there to be one until years later, so on that point there is no answer.

 

I'll bet there are dozens and dozens of video's out there of people from all walks of life who say something which they then, years later, have changed their minds or views on, this is especially true of politicians who as we all know seem to chop and change their minds on a near weekly basis.

 

One of the main arguments put forward for holding a second referendum is that people have changed their minds, yet it seems JRM isn't allowed to have changed his mind from something he said 7 years previously, or is it a case of being more selective in who gets picked up on something they said years previously, like I said there will be loads of such speeches/video clips which May, Corbyn, Sturgeon, Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Cable, Cameron, Clegg et al have made over the years where their views have changed on what they had previously said, indeed this is also true of pretty much everyone of us, we have all said things which we later, sometimes much much later that we now don't agree with or our views on the subject have changed.