Immigrants were born outside the Country, mostly in England, We have a lot of excellent native Somalis, Chinese, Italians and Spsaniards..

Immigrants were born outside the Country, — iolo

Alas, the answer you might choose to give, or someone else might choose to give, or the dictionary definition or the legal definition, none of these are what I am asking. Who decided, (was there a discussion or a vote,) that place of birth was of any importance?

To put it in context, when Scotland didn't vote for independence, the line was already drawn that defined Scotland, and only those living north of that line got to vote. Perhaps if Northumberland had been included, the vote would have gone the other way... And when the UK voted to leave the EU, the line was already drawn between those deciding to leave or not, and those being left or not. We (the UK) decided one way. We (Scotland) decided the other way - but for this vote, that line does not exist because... no reason.

Next week, the line of birthplace may supersede the line of citizenship and naturalisation. 'We' could decide that after all immigrants (your definition) shouldn't get to vote. And that can be a democratic decision to eliminate those 30% of votes, but whose vote counts in deciding whose vote counts?

So Theresa tries to clinch the MV3-deal by offering BoJo and Moggle potential power by resigning, if either wins the Tory vote for class president. That might work. But you can ask whether the split is all that meaningful. The withdrawal agreement explicitly states: — Benkei

It seems a moot point now (though perhaps 4th times the charm), but explicitly excluding something in a negotiation is generally basis to argue that it creates a wide birth around what would otherwise be implied (i.e. compared to had the thing in question not been proposed and removed, it may very well have been part of the agreement by implication of other language present); I do this all the time in negotiations. There's a latin expression for it, but I can't remember. So, in this case, removing the political declaration would be the basis for the next PM to argue that political declaration and everything implied by it was not agreed to, even if remaining language would otherwise imply the entire thing.

I can't believe she's actually considering a fourth try. The next time it fails, she should receive some sort of punishment for this tomfoolery. She should be put in stocks outside the houses of parliament or something.

Before you can discern the will of the people, you have to decide the extent of the people. — unenlightened

Even apart from the implications you're getting at, the extent of the people in this case (eligible voters in the UK) have a rather big impact on the ability to discern the will of the people. 51.9% voted in favour of leave with a turn out of 72%. We can ask whether that's significant. Luckily someone did and the answer is, no it isn't. So the will of the people is basically not known.

What is known is that Tories know what's good for themselves.

If 1,269,501 people turned up at your house, would you think that significant? Yes, you most certainly would. That's over a million people. That's how many more voters voted to leave.

It's bad sportsmanship to complain about a contest after it is over and you've lost. We could do this with countless cases. I bet, for example, you don't give supporters of UKIP any credence when they complain about the fact that UKIP didn't end up with 83 seats after the 2015 general election as they would have under proportional representation, as opposed to the 1 seat they secured under first-past-the-past, so stop with the double standard. You're finding problems to fit your political motive.

I really don't like these sort of attacks. It's bad enough that we will be financially worse off in the case of Brexit. That's reason enough to be against it. There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.

There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action.

Did you read the link I provided? It's simple statistics.

The waters are muddied somewhat by
1) The vote was close
2) There are many ways to leave, but that was barely an issue at the time, so vague was the wording.
3) Leaders of the winning side announced before the result that they would be seekinganother referendum if they lost
4)the 52-48 has become 47-53 ... and decreasing

Democratic honour does need to be satisfied, but it is not clear where the honour lies. I guess a very soft Brexit would be fairest, but I can certainly see that a second referendum would be almost as fair, with the added bonus of the possibility of remaining - which would be a far better economic outrcome.

Perhaps a second referendum would have to be STV from 3 or 4 options ranging from no deal to remain. I am sure there is a cognitive bias to select a non-extreme option so this second referendum would be a little biased against remain (and no deal), but this could be seen as a "fair" compensation to leavers given that the first referendum did produce a win for "leave" (whatever that means!)

There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.

There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action. — S

You seem to be unable to understand the distinction between criticism of the method of democratic process, (which was also shit as most referenda are), and criticism of drawing the wrong conclusions based on the result of that process. It was basically a tie so interpreting the result as "the will of the people" is simply political expediency and nothing more. That's a criticism of your political class and media.

So no, that isn't democracy in action. It's a lack of understanding how referenda work to begin with and a subsequent abuse of the result because of it.

Yes, I browsed over your link. It was simplistic, I'll grant you that much. For instance, it starts with an obvious and irrelevant fact which you get with just about every single political vote on just about anything: absence of a full turnout. When has there ever been a full turnout on any vote ever? What a joke! How about the fact that this was the highest turn out in a political vote in the UK in a very long time? That's of far greater significance. It is clearly one of those pieces which has a specific goal in mind, namely to trivialise the results, and then sets about trying to manipulate the reader into agreement.

No, it's not basically a tie. That's just how you want to spin it. There isn't a winning side and a losing side in a tie, so it can't be a tie, "basically" or otherwise. There were set rules before the event, the event went ahead, both sides were happy enough to get right into campaigning, the vote took place, the results were announced, revealing a winning side and a losing side, not a tie. That the leave side secured over a million more votes made them the winning side. You know that as well as I do. Sorry, Benkei, but you don't get to make up your own rules and declare your own results. That's make believe.

MPs reject all Brexit options again

Lol?

I might just go back to being apolitical and apathetic. Life was so much less stressful.

No, it's not basically a tie. That's just how you want to spin it. There isn't a winning side and a losing side in a tie, so it can't be a tie, "basically" or otherwise. There were set rules before the event, the event went ahead, both sides were happy enough to get right into campaigning, the vote took place, the results were announced, revealing a winning side and a losing side, not a tie. That the leave side secured over a million more votes made them the winning side. You know that as well as I do. Sorry, Benkei, but you don't get to make up your own rules and declare your own results. That's make believe.

Yes, I browsed over your link. It was simplistic, I'll grant you that much. For instance, it starts with an obvious and irrelevant fact which you get with just about every single political vote on just about anything: absence of a full turnout. When has there ever been a full turnout on any vote ever? What a joke! How about the fact that this was the highest turn out in a political vote in the UK in a very long time? That's of far greater significance. It is clearly one of those pieces which has a specific goal in mind, namely to trivialise the results, and then sets about trying to manipulate the reader into agreement. — S

What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552

And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about.

Even apart from the implications you're getting at, the extent of the people in this case (eligible voters in the UK) have a rather big impact on the ability to discern the will of the people. 51.9% voted in favour of leave with a turn out of 72%. We can ask whether that's significant. Luckily someone did and the answer is, no it isn't. So the will of the people is basically not known.

What is known is that Tories know what's good for themselves. — Benkei

Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business.

What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552

And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about. — Benkei

:roll:

Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business. — Metaphysician Undercover

Nothing about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. For that to really stand any chance of counting, then you would have needed to be in a position to have done something about it at the relevant time. Benkei isn't even a citizen of the United Kingdom: he rightfully has no say, except to express his opinion of course. The electorate had the chance to vote for a party other than the Tories under David Cameron. The electorate had the chance to vote to remain. The majority was against. Thems the rules, like it or lump it. And this is coming from a Labour supporting Remainer.

Nothing about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. — S

I thought we already went through this. S and and Benkei are just pointing out that votes do not necessarily entail "will of the people" or democracy. If you don't view first past the post as democratic, but a sort of managed aristocracy, then the rules setup are likewise undemocratic. Though this is another part of the debate.

For the matter at hand, "dem's the rules" is also an overstretch. The promise was to trigger article 50, which has been done, so the PM's and government can claim they already fulfilled the mandate of the referendum. The fact that it was presumed to be irreversible and this assumption turned out to be false, we can say is "tough titties" for the leavers, and given this new information it's the responsibility of the house and government to review whether revoking article 50 is the best course of action today including putting it to another referendum vote. Likewise, even ignoring new information as the "dirty tricks" of remainers, it's entirely consistent with the "rules" you describe of putting the form of Brexit to another referendum and including in that vote the option of reversing it; as any deliberating body always has the option to change their mind, whether a king, cabinet, MP's or the electorate as a whole.

Likewise, it would be consistent with "the rules" to argue MP's must push Brexit through as it's of practical importance to not make Britain look like a total farce and their responsibility as first-past-the-post MP's is to make these tough decisions even if a majority are against it now. Criticizing this position reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system itself, not the particulars of Brexit proceedings within the system as it is.

However, that it is in principle undemocratic to use a democratic process to make a decision, because that decision might contradict the result of a previous democratic decision, is not consistent. Decisions can change, even in a democracy.

Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw).

Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw). — boethius

I'd say, perhaps go for three referendums. Two wins out of three ought to be fair.

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.

That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism.

From within the system, there were options for a different outcome. I haven't said anything about the "will of the people" in any of my most recent comments. The majority of voters voted for leave. That's a fact. The rule was such that this meant that leave won the referendum. That's a fact. David Cameron pledged an in/out referendum and his party was subsequently voted into government by a majority of voters. That's a fact. These were opportunities for change from within.

As for change from without, clearly that hasn't worked so far either, although I didn't take them to be arguing that in any case. It just looked like attempts to trivialise the result or complain that a different set of rules, like a higher threshold for a winner, would've been better. That's merely theoretical and complacent. In reality, it simply didn't go down that way. You can make a case to handle things like this differently going forward, but there seems little point in crying over spilt milk.

Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?

If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.

Boris Johnson: Brexit would not affect Irish border (29 February 2016)

If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote. — andrewk

As I've said before, I think the prospect of a hard border is a reason to simply cancel Brexit. Maintaining the GFA is more important than "respecting" the referendum result.

A well-educated electorate is crucial for any referendum to work the way it ought. Sometimes the majority of people are quite wrong and base their vote upon misleading, inadequate, and/or downright false information.

Good, accurate, and adequate information ought be a cornerstone; the necessary pre-requisite of anything meant to resemble self-governance.

I agree.

Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?

If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote. — andrewk

It's definitely an extremely important issue, and it definitely seems to have been neglected. It's only a risk at this stage, although that in itself is very serious. But I hope with all of my heart that it remains nothing worse than a risk. I hope with all of my heart that it doesn't become a reality. This is actually the sort of thing which could spurn me into protest: the prospect of undoing the work that went into achieving relative peace.

et al... If the world's oldest parliament can't maintain the box on which the Prime Minister puts her papers when she is addressing the Speaker, I don't see much of a future for the country. For Gawd's sake, repaint it or put some new contact plastic covering on it. How long has it (the country, the parliament, the PM, the box -- all of it) been looking so shabby?



And what, exactly, is in that box?

And what, exactly, is in that box? — Bitter Crank

The plans to retake the colonies

And what, exactly, is in that box? — Bitter Crank

A generator. When Maybot is leaning on it, she's recharging.

It sits next to the plans to retake the colonies.

"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.

That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism. — S

We've been over all these points before. If the MP's voted for another referendum, that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for May's deal that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for something else, that would be working within the system.

None of these possibilities are "anti-democratic" as democracy is currently understood in the UK system as it is today.

Your argument is that a second referendum is somehow anti-democratic, or for whatever reason should be dismissed prima faci. However "best 2 our of 3", nor any of your other arguments, is not an anti-democratic process; if the MP's voted for a 2 our of 3 contest they could do that and, insofar as first past the post is democratic, then the 2 out of 3 referendum would be democratic too.

All arguments you have presented are not based on the principles of democracy, neither from some philosophical view of what democracy is or should be nor from the practical implementation of what the UK calls their democracy today. All the arguments you have presented, and other "no second referendum" participants to the conversation, are either simply bad arguments (that if a second referendum was held and Brexit lost this would be unfair to the voters of the first Brexit and somehow anti-democratic) or then arguments from practical considerations (that having too many referendums too close together is simply not practical).

Think about it: "elected MP's voting on an issue they decide to vote for" is anti-democratic within the UK system.

Now if your projecting that I believe it would be anti-democratic not to have a second referendum in the UK system's current democracy, and you have just poorly formulated the above argument from the opposite starting point that not-having a second referendum would not-be-democratic in the current UK system, no where have I made that claim. If the MP's vote for May's deal or something else that's not a second referendum, then likewise nothing anti-democratic has occurred within the first-past-the-post system of democracy.

My mention of first-past-the-post is that criticizing Brexit proceedings by the government and in parliament as such reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system, there is nothing special about Brexit in such a criticism. This was to simply make clear that none of the outcomes voted by MP's I view as undemocratic in the current system and that debating first-past-the-post would be a conversation largely independent of Brexit.

I've been predicting a second referendum, but not because the UK citizens have a right to a second referendum, but because it is the-least-worst-option for the debacle and at some point MP's will have a hard time making objectively worse choices.

Though second referendum may seem "too late", it is still very much in the running as it maybe the only way to secure a long extension from the EU.

From the Tory government perspective, there are only 2 good options among only bad options. Work out some sort of exit from the EU that can be called Brexit and move on (May's deal) or drag on the negotiation be at least able to say "we tried" and then create a last minute crisis where a second referendum needs to be carried out before a general election; this would at least bring some semblance of closure to the issue and the Tories could regroup before the next general election (whereas a "Brexit" general election would be the worst possible scenario for the Tories at is would an election where the only subject to talk about is Tory incompetence).

So, given May's deal is dead then (maybe) my prediction remains second referendum will spontaneously generate over the next couple of weeks out of the chaotic negotiations with the EU for an extension. The EU has now more reasons to revoke an extension than to grant one, but at the end of the day the EU is about democracy so there is no possible principled opposition to granting an extension for the purposes of a second referendum, which if the UK people voted to remain it's basically the best possible outcome for the EU: the UK is humiliated and the EU suffers zero negative consequences remaining as strong economically as before with a few countries having gained some business and investment from all the uncertainty (so all other EU national leaders as well as Brexit technocrats would be able to toast to that).

Of course I could be wrong, the humiliation of admitting a mistake and letting the people of the UK resolve by referendum a crisis created by a ill-defined referendum, maybe too great for the crust of English high society (in other words, the English upper class, in particular the Tories, may prefer to harm UK citizens much more by a chaotic Brexit or just stupid trade policy with their biggest trading partner, rather than harm their own pride even a smidgen; long term the consequences could be grave even for political careers of those involved (relative hiding behind a second referendum, just as the goal was initially with the first referendum), but who cares about that).

And here is the same box on the 20th of March, a fortnight before the picture above. Doesn't seem to have the tacky white contact material attached which P.M. May had tried to remove,



Compare:



No wonder they can't get Brexit straightened out.

Maybe you have some insight into the box?