Indicative Vote

letitbe90

Spidernick wrote: »

Yes, see examples below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpwDI_aGHc

They don't like you to mention this now and of course Farage now says 'I just meant rich'!

A lot of outcomes were mentioned in the leave campaign, including getting the easiest deal in history. Something tells me the possibility of a Norway option isn't what made leavers jump with joy and the polls to date show that.

We must look at the outcomes remaining and the only ones feasible. We know remain is one, but we have to accept no-deal is the other. All other in between options are fringe options and just a huge waste of time.

If parliament ended up with some BRINO option, the public will rightly ask, why didn't we just remain? You made us objectively worse off than remaining (according to the government's own research) and didn't honor what the majority electorate wanted. Can we all at least recognise that BRINO is something the government should not exercise - we don't want a damage limitation exercise, it is just irresponsible.

andrewf75

letitbe90 wrote: »

Can we all at least recognise that BRINO is something the government should not exercise

No. There is no such thing as BRINO. You’re either in or out. Norway is 100% out.

The sensible arguments against being in the EU relate to sovereignty and a Norway-option takes us 100% out of the political project. Hardly anyone cares about doing independent trade deals or following the vast majority of EU rules. Immigration is the one sticking point and with a bit of vision, the government could make some firm commitments to reduce it.

There is no way out of this that doesn’t anger some people. I’m not suggesting Norway is perfect, its just the least damaging option.

AnotherJoe

letitbe90 wrote: »

What people voted for before is not relevant as it no longer exists.



How can you say that if you dont know what it is? Please tell me what it was.



3 years ago they may have hoped and were promised of a great deal that everyone will like, that hasn't materialised. So we see what is left.

I would gladly bet my mortgage that, given all the brexit options, no deal would win in a public vote by a landslide (this is excluding remain as an option).



Why would you exclude remain. If as you say what we voted for isnt there then why isnt remain a possibilty?


I mean the polls support my thinking. Many MP's are remainers (like me), seem happy to feign ignorance of this. Some remain MP's stated that the choice should be between Remain and May's deal - which says more about their anti-no deal stance rather than public opinion.
The polls only answer whatever question is asked.


It is not to say nobody might want some Norway option or even Theresa May's deal, but the majority opinion of leavers is that of a no deal now.
Why is that relevant. If (say) 75% of leavers want a no deal and the other 25% wanted a "soft brexit" maybe they would switch to remain and so remain becomes the majority? IN fact the only actual clear cut vote was remainders. Very simple proposition. The slight leave majority is hopelessly split over what it means.


Having a "technically, it's brexit" doesn't do anyone favours - it makes our country worse off, an outcome neither remainers or leavers want.

Some will. Thats the beauty of it theres someone who wants every possible option you can think of. They say no deal is better than a bad deal - I will add to that - no brexit is better than a bad brexit. (define "bad brexit" ) If we go ahead with brexit, it should be a no-deal one.

So many woolly undefined words. "good" brexit bad" brexit "technically" left the EU etc etc. This is why we are in this mess.

letitbe90

AnotherJoe wrote: »

So many woolly undefined words. "good" brexit bad" brexit "technically" left the EU etc etc. This is why we are in this mess.

A bad brexit is a damage limitation Brexit (by governement's own admission). A bad brexit is one where the government themselves see it as having long term poor outcomes.


Also, I am happy for remain to be an option if there is another vote (and I would vote remain), but it should be no deal or remain - why are we faffing about CU 2.0 and other nonsense that has no real public support? Silly to include all fringe options in my view.



I said exclude remain not to remove it from the equation as an outcome but I was talking about polling of if there was a brexit - how would they like it to occur.

ToasterScheme

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

A GE certainly bears thinking about if it gives voters the opportunity to drain the swamp of self serving MPs who are totally out of touch with people whom they were voted to represent.

That's a big if. We'd probably just get a different set of self serving MPs who are etc. etc.

Sanctioned_Parts_List

ToasterScheme wrote: »

That's a big if. We'd probably just get a different set of self serving MPs who are etc. etc.

The alternative might be to abolish elected MPs, and instead draft them for 5 year terms along the same lines as jury service. Of course the risk is that you might get 650 clueless incompetents instead of...

oh.

Never mind.

Malthusian

Sanctioned_Parts_List wrote: »

The alternative might be to abolish elected MPs, and instead draft them for 5 year terms along the same lines as jury service. Of course the risk is that you might get 650 clueless incompetents instead of...

The problem with that plan is not so much the incompetence of the drafted MPs, but the unconscionability of the state stealing 5 years of life from people chosen at random. Which is very different from a few weeks of jury service.

The people who currently work as MPs would almost certainly set themselves up as "advisers" to the drafted MPs who lacked the confidence, interest and aptitude to do the job properly, and the country would run pretty much exactly as it is now, but more expensively.

Another problem with choosing a Parliament by lottery is that it would be way, way too white. (I mean by universally accepted progressive standards; I personally have no strong feelings.)

Herzlos

Sanctioned_Parts_List wrote: »

The alternative might be to abolish elected MPs, and instead draft them for 5 year terms along the same lines as jury service. Of course the risk is that you might get 650 clueless incompetents instead of...

oh.

Never mind.

The problem is how you get the 326 of those clueless incompetents to vote to make themselves obsolete, and then the logistics of how you actually get volunteers to turn up and do the job. What do you do about their day job that needs put on hold?


I'd be all for something more akin to Jury Duty for discrete sets of questions - draft in 650 eligable voters for 2 weeks to decide a high level policy on something, and then let the administration action it. Most people could handle doing that, whilst 5 year terms could be life altering for most.

Sanctioned_Parts_List

It was, of course said in jest, rather than as a serious proposal, although that doesn't diminish the points you've both raised; thank you for well-considered posts

Interestingly, Herzlos' suggestion is actually rather close to the original parliaments called in feudal England, although the eligible voters were all lords and the decisions weren't always to the King's advantage.

Malthusian

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd be all for something more akin to Jury Duty for discrete sets of questions - draft in 650 eligable voters for 2 weeks to decide a high level policy on something, and then let the administration action it.

That sounds great. Every time there was a high level policy decision which a tribe of the population didn't agree with, people would bang on about how "only 326 people voted to ruin our lives" regardless of how large a proportion of the wider population agreed with the 326. It would be even more insufferable than people banging on about how "only 44% of the electorate voted for Brexit" while failing to explain how 41% is better than 44%.

It would be much easier to draft in 1 eligible voter to make the decisions. Not only would it be more efficient, cheaper, and exactly as democratic, the tedious "only 1 person voted for this" argument would be refuted by "that 1 person is Il Duce and if you don't agree you'll be shot".