Brexit #2

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 10:58 AM

I think many here confuse the very rigorous science of collecting data and the less vigorous means available to interpret it. This is further complicated by having to adopt proxies to derive measurements for which no actual techniques exist.
https://www.clim-past.net/13/629/2017/cp-13-629-2017.pdf
There is also a problem potentially when combining terrestrial and satellite data sets and believing satellite data replicating that from ground stations.
Had we relied on satellite data exclusively who knows how big the ozone hole would be. However the exceedingly antique Dobsons photometer saved the day and embarrassed NASA.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/obituaries/joe-farman-scientist-who-first-uncovered-the-hole-in-the-ozone-layer-8624438.html

Blind belief in the consensus of the IPCC leads to all sorts of problems = just ask mr macron.(if you can find him among the yellow jackets)

I have collected, collated, and interpreted data all my working life. All is not always what it seems.I have learnt to trust nothing and question everything.

If you insist on being led by the nose by the pontificating of the guardian that is up to you. I know better.





Dobson

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:14 AM

We have started, Jim. Just waiting for you to join us :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:24 AM

Righty-O
Off to hear some great music tonight anyway (forgotten it was Willie Clancy's 100th anniversary)
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 11:37 AM

So what are the scientific qualifications of the yellow jackets? Or indeed M. Macron for that matter, though he probably does indeed listen to those with scientific qualifications.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 12:14 PM

Time for a little sanity from Guido

https://order-order.com/2018/12/07/20-back-second-referendum-deal-voted/
cannot link to the next one
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-news-latest-may-feels-to-win-backing-for-her-deal-as-more-than-half-of-brits-reject-pms-a4011266.html
Note the survey source ipsosmori

Theresa May's efforts to win public backing for her Brexit deal have failed, according to a poll that will pile pressure on her to delay a potentially crushing defeat in the Commons.

More than 60 per cent think leaving the European Union on her terms would be a bad outcome for Britain, including 47 per cent of Conservatives, Ipsos MORI said. Only 25 per cent think the deal would be good.

Seven in 10 are not confident she obtained a good agreement from the EU, including more than half of Conservative supporters. Half of the public say the deal is “worse” than they expected.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 02:54 PM

Only 20% favour a second referendum.
Only 20% favour leaving with no deal.

I wonder which Guido will concentrate on?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 03:35 PM

He merely reported the results reasonably objectively. This may be construed as heresy by some!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: KarenH
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 04:53 PM

We now have two links to the Guardian article which don't work.

However, thank you to the poster who confirmed that the link which does work is to the correct article.


Just for the record, I never said that the article didn't exist.

And thank you again, Nigel, for the link which does work. Posting it is, as I said, a good way to deal with Ians' nonsense, as it does not say what he appears to understand thinks that it says. I have explained once what it does say.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 06:39 PM

I know this Brexit stuff feels like it’s been going on for ever, and it can be tempting to switch to something else, but I suggest that it,s better to do that by switching to another thread, and keep this one on target. Things are moving quite quickly, and it's quite handy to have a thread about the issue.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM

"Teaching science to school children does not make one a scientist it makes one a teacher."

Well, in this country you have to be a science graduate in order to teach science. In fact, I taught children, not science, to 'A' Level for many years, and was an assistant chief examiner for 'A' Level biology for the University of London examinations board. My job entailed moderating the marking of the chief examiner team as well as that of my own team of assistant examiners, and I marked thousands of overseas scripts and adjudicated on grade challenges. Accuracy and close attention to detail were the order of the day. My degree was from Imperial College. Why I'm telling a confounded idiot all this is beyond me, actually. I could also tell you, uselessly no doubt in your case, that it's inadvisable to pay too much heed to the ramblings of a chap whose main aim appears to be to try to blind us with arcane references to many an off-topic enterprise of his that we only have his word for his involvement with. His science, and his understanding of the scientific method, is so shaky that I wouldn't be surprised to hear that the companies foolish enough to employ him haven't all gone bust. Or maybe the fact that they haven't is testament to the fact that he was a mere minion within their employ, definitely no leader of men. It can't be both. Still, bobad, your call, me old son.

Anyway, sod all that. I see that May has promised MPs a vote in the dim and distant future as to whether we should enter the backstop. Quite simply, this is a promise she can't make. There's nothing unilateral about the backstop. She's given up control on that one so she's lying to MPs. I'd love to say that her days are numbered, but I can't think who would want to inherit the poisoned chalice. Not any Tory grandee, and not, I suspect, in spite of the bold talk, Jeremy Corbyn. The national interest is well and truly buried. If you have tears, prepare to shed them soon.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:24 AM

I think someone said earlier that the choices now are May's deal, no deal or withdraw article 50. I would agree with that. There is no time to negotiate another option. Given that that is true, and I would be happy to be corrected if it is not, then how would parliament go about voting for one of them? Votes have always been binary so will they just use the Noel Edmonds option of deal or no deal, ignoring the elephant in the room of staying put? Or will they do, as I and others have suggested, and try to stay in while saving face?

I think it would be provident to stay put and sell that to the country as a temporary measure until the complex issues are sorted out. The reasoning being that once we leave, that's it but if we stay we can always invoke A50 at a later stage. If that involves another referendum in, say, 2 years then so be it. I disagree with referendums but if it gets us out of the mess we are in, so be it.

Chris Evans on the radio, not noted for deep political analysis but bear with me, said something interesting the other day. It is not so much brexit that is the issue now but that brexit had broken the existing political system. I think he could be right! Maybe David Cameron did do us a favour after all. The system is deeply flawed if one administration can ruin the country for generations to come. Maybe, just maybe, something better will arise from the ashes of May's crash and burn.

Yes, I know, pigs may fly too. I am a glass half full person :-)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:52 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 03:59 AM

I'm pretty sure that the brexiteers will say that remain has already been ruled out. In answer to that I would say that the leave that they were promised, easy, no downside etc. is a very different leave to the leave they are likely to get!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM

But if you have another referendum that excludes the possibility of remaining you are immediately excluding the opinions of at least a very large minority, or even a small majority, of the electorate... Suppose the choice was between May's deal and no deal, and the turnout was slashed because millions of disgusted remainers refrained from voting (there's no way I'd vote for either of those and I wouldn't be on my own, would I?) How would any result based on that serve democracy?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM

I see mr shaw's last contribution is way off topic and you blame me for distraction!


“He thinks the sun comes up just to hear him crow.”

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:27 AM

That is of course a reference to From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 07 Dec 18 - 07:14 PM
As apparently we cross posted.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:32 AM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

That is why we have to use some form of eliminating transferable vote system. Yes, actually agreeing what form is a problem in its own right, but it has to come up with a result where the is a clear winner. Anna Subry's approach of eliminating the weakest - No deal in your example - and redistributing the second preference to whichever of "May's deal" and "Remain" they preferred will end up with one above 50%, which would be the winner. Now, if some of these Brexiteers are telling the truth that they really do prefer remain to May's deal, then Remain would be highish 50's or low 60's and a clear win. However, I suspect they are not and we would end up again at an almost 50-50 split. And I cannot see that ending well.

There has been quite a lot of talk of the Condorcet system. I don't think is a good idea partly for technical reasons but mainly because it does not eliminate options, so would indeed end up with the sort of result Steve listed, probably with no-one above 50%. That also, I think, makes ongoing division near certain.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:35 AM

VOICES IN HIGH PLACES
MORE
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:04 AM

I found it darkly amusing this morning to reflect on the fact that one of the things May and many others complained about for the 2016 referendum vote was that there was no plan whatsoever for how to proceed if the option Cameron preferred did not win.   

Which appears to be exactly the position for the Dec 11 parliamentary vote on her deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 05:41 AM

I think that may be human nature, DMcG. No one enters a challenge expecting to lose. I agree that they should have a contingency for if they do though.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:07 AM

How many are emigrating if the fickle finger of fate places Corbyn in power.
(An unlikely scenario, but nothing can be discounted in these mad times)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:09 AM

The problem of the short timescale is eliminated if we withdraw Article 50 now, then a period of negotiation, the exactly the vote that Steve proposes, with the options being no deal, whatever deal is negotiated, and remain as is. Personally I would be in favour of a fourth option, further integration with membership of the Euro and Schengen, but I suspect that would be almost as unpopular as no deal.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:34 AM

I fail to see how two posts nine hours apart can be regarded as having been "cross-posted."

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:46 AM

It's amazing how, in all this talk of another vote, we've forgotten about the crucial principle that Cameron forgot when he set up the referendum, that if you want to make a massive and irreversible change of direction then the bar for change must be set very high. The original vote was marginal and unconvincing and the whole matter should have been dropped there and then. A similar close vote in whatever cockup of another referendum is magicked up would solve absolutely nothing. It reminds me of that old Irish joke in which a chap asks another chap for directions to another town. "Well if I were you I wouldn't start from here," came the reply.

I can't see a way out of this that isn't going to pitch this country into big trouble. I'd like to see our politicians pulling the plug on the whole thing, taking us back to the halcyon days of pre-2016, then ducking.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 06:50 AM

From: Iains - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:23 AM
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 04:13 AM
Call yourself a scientist?
Apparently you cannot even read a clock!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:04 AM

If we do enter into the unfortunate circumstance of another vote, I see that there are some, including John McDonnell, who are suggesting that remain shouldn't be an option on the ballot paper. I think that would be an outrage and an affront to democracy. We are where we are because of unforeseen difficulties (yes, I know...), the need for unsavoury compromises and almost certain economic catastrophe. None of those were flagged up by the leave side in the first campaign, so giving us now only a choice of how to leave would be immoral. If this country still has the ability to ditch brexit, then that option must be on the ballot. Far too much has changed since June 2016 for the assumption to be fairly made that we must "respect the result (38 percent, lest we forget) of the referendum." The very fact that we'd be having another vote instead of just getting on with it suggests a root and branch rethink. Massaging the ballot to exclude remaining would be an affront to millions of people whose only choice would then be between two equally bad options. There's already a groundswell against that which would result in millions of spoiled ballot papers with REMAIN scrawled across. It's a dead cert that such a ballot simply wouldn't work.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:11 AM

The post you're complaining about contained considerable on-topic material in addition to my response to bobad's off-topic post. You complain about people going off-topic, yet three out of YOUR last four posts have been completely off-topic and peppered with petty insults. Now why don't you just go and sort yourself out. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what YOU think about brexit.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:25 AM

Steve
He probably only comes here because nobody else will talk to him - nort even at home
How would your family react to somebody who behaved if you brought that behaviour home ?
Let him wallow in his own swill
Jim

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 07:55 AM

Errr. Steve, are you sure? Last I saw from John McDonnell was that a referendum would be between Mrs May's deal and remain, and that he would vote remain,

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:28 AM

Ah, dammit, David, he's changed his mind! This from the Guardian on Nov 28:

"At a Guardian Live event less than 24 hours earlier, McDonnell had said a second Brexit referendum “might be an option we seize upon”, suggesting for the first time that remain should be on the ballot paper and insisting that a no-deal Brexit should not."

I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 09:04 AM


I promise to try and keep up! :-(

Probably of limited value until after the vote on the 11th! :)

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 10:40 AM

I think thats a point in McDonnell's favour, when faced with overwhelming evidence, he is prepared to change his mind. No such common sense from May, who adheres to her "red lines" no matter how damaging to the national interest they are shown to be.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 12:38 PM

What about Amber Rudd? Is it pay-back time for May's treatment of her over the past couple of years, or is she a committed accomplice of May in a plan to abandon the idiocy of Brexit but in a way that will avoid the blame falling on May, and laying it firmly on the other 648 MPs?

I think it's the former, but I fervently hope and pray that it's the latter.

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 08 Dec 18 - 08:29 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was

May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%

Then what?

The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.

I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 01:10 AM

"I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that."
It's about time the system was considered for all elections
Ireland has its problems with rogue politicians, the recent Presidential election which presented us with a blatant attempt at a takeover by the use of racist Populism against Travellers, showed that.
In the main, the PR system manages to present some form of balance and the worst excesses are kept in check, forcing the leaders to at least listen to what others are saying, unlike Britain
The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives.
Here, you are left with the feeling that, by voting, you are making a difference - I can never remember feeling that in Britain - you always know that, whatever they promise at election time doesn't mean squat once they are in power
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 04:03 AM

That is pretty much what I said earlier, McGrath, but it does make the assumption there is a means for the least favoured option to be dropped. Which is not only reasonable, but is easy to understand. Voting systems using one of the various Condorcet systems do not do that: instead they use the ranking to assess each pair - leave versus May, remain versus May, leave versus remain - and allocate a total percentage to each option, which would end up looking very like Steve's list.

If it does, it will not matter a jot how clever the mathematics behind it is to ensure fairness in a formal sense, people will see one of two things, or possibly both:

a) There are two things that could be labelled 'leave' and one 'remain', so the 'leave' vote will be claimed to have been unfairly split.

b) the 'experts' behind the scene are rigging the vote.

Which is why I say elimination of the weakest option is vital.



I have also been thinking about any forthcoming campaigns. As I said before, people votes are more based on emotion, in the main, rather than fact - there is plenty of research. So I think to have a chance of winning the Remain camp really does need to talk about 'retaining control' (who believes Trump's America will be gentler than the EU?), patriotism (keeping the UK together) and other such softer things, not just financials.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 09:12 AM

Boris has had a haircut, He must be planning something. Another career for Marr at the very least.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Iains
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 10:07 AM

"The regular use of the referendum has made vital changes to Irish lives."

Is this the reason the brexit referendum result is being thwarted at every turn?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 11:01 AM

Mr. Natural sez 'Tuesday afternoon after lunch is the most cosmic time of the week".
Good luck on Tuesday.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:32 PM

And suppose we had a three-way people's vote and the result was
May's deal 30%
No deal 22%
Remain 48%
Then what?
The "no deal" option would fall out of the contest, and the second preference of those voters (where they had chosen to indicate that) would be allocated to the vote for the other options. The winner would be the option which now had the largest total. Probably Remain, in this case, since many Hard Deal Brexiters have indicated that May's option is worse than Remain.
I find it hard to conceive that a First Past the Post system would be adopted in a three way referendum. I doubt if the Electoral Commission would even permit that.


The problem is that a vote on those terms will give an unfair advantage to the remain proposition. On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.
For those who are serious about leaving the EU, "May's deal" is effectively a vote to remain.
It is interesting to note that the suggested voting figures give 48% to 'remain', which was the original voting pattern, but improves the chance of 'remain' getting the final vote. Obviously a skewed system.
Under the above suggestion, if one of the other two options fails at the first hurdle, 'Remain' can never drop below 48%, and so has an unfair advantage.
'Remain' has already been voted against by the public, so any vote should be between 'accept May's deal' and 'leave with no deal'.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:54 PM

On the first round of voting one of the other two will be knocked out.

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:57 PM

I think, by the way, that May's deal is the one most likely to be eliminated, so the deciding factor is likely to be what those who put May's in first place put in the second place.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly?

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is. Then May's deal will split the remain vote, rather than splitting the leave vote.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 06:45 PM

"That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is."

Nonsense. It provides for a small number of the provisions of membership, but without the opportunity to take part in the processes that control those provisions - it would make us a Vassal State of the EU. Completely unacceptable.

Just as you mob demand that Leave means Leave, Remainers demand that 'Remain means Remain' on precisely the terms we currently enjoy. May's half-arsed agreement doesn't even begin to do that.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:11 PM

"Obviously a skewed system."

Somewhat ironic, this, from a brexiteer. Nothing could have been more "skewed" than the original referendum. The electorate was given a choice between leaving, an irreversible decision (once enacted) that would affect generations to come, and remain, a decision that could be challenged again and again at frequent intervals for about ten million quid a time. Yet the bar was set at fifty-fifty. When an irrevocable change in a nation's fortunes is called for, you might expect the bar to be set high. I'd have said a minimum of a two-thirds majority on a minimum 75% turnout, but hey. Expediency rules OK!

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Jack Campin
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:22 PM

Fishing again. In case anybody didn't notice, you can't store a live lobster and hope a customs official will get round to collecting the duties on it.

https://newsnet.scot/news-analysis/is-eyemouth-facing-a-brexit-employment-tsumani

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Stanron
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:26 PM

I agree with Nigel. May's deal is actually 'remain'. I'm amazed that you (the extreme UK left wing) don't support it.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 09 Dec 18 - 07:57 PM

Don't be silly. May's deal takes us out of the single market and customs union, and ends free movement. Remain means keeping all those things. If you can't see the difference, you simply haven't been keeping up.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: DMcG
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:03 AM

ate: 09 Dec 18 - 05:59 PM 

And if that is the thing the fewest people support, your objection to it being eliminated is what, exactly? 

That May's deal should be clearly marked as a 'remain' option, because that is what it is.

Now who is claiming the general public are too stupid to understand what they are voting for?

Whether you think May's deal is remain, or I think it is leave matters for how we vote as individuals. It is for each voter to decide what it means. So it needs to be labelled May's vote. Not leave. Not remain.

Nor does it split the vote, because the system merges the results until there is a clear winner. I happen to think most people who put May in first place would put leave in second. If that were true, Remain would get the 48% on both rounds on Steve's figures and leave would get the 52%. Talk of splitting votes is misunderstanding the system.

Subject: RE: Brexit #2
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 Dec 18 - 02:08 AM

There is no extreme left wing on here. Use of that phrase only proves how far to the right things have moved. Even if there were, they would most likely support your view as both ends of the political spectrum are anti-europe. It is the more moderate who support remain.