OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Ram59]

The only way to get a true majority is to make voting compulsory, but this takes away people's freedom of decision whether to vote. Also, would you have an abstaining box on the voting form? This would probably lead to another minority decision.

If we assume that the non voters would have abstained, we would have had a result of 37% to leave, 34% to remain and 29% abstaining. What outcome would you accepted from a vote like that, Anag?

[AdiSalisbury]

To pick up on Gaspode (by the way, who made a comment regarding voting a few months ago that contributed to my decision to vote out as initially I was in a remain position)...

I disagree that it's wrong to abstain from voting. Voting should reflect your will, and if you don't have a position of will then your vote does not represent you, and only provides an inaccurate representation of the nations feelings. Not everyone is physically / mentally capable of researching certain elements, and many don't have a vested interest. I wouldn't want my vote cancelled out by someone tossing a coin.

[ramAnag]

Pongo was a dalmatian as were 100 more.

Plus

Whoever told you that a UK General Election was a 4 or 5 horse race? In 70% of constituencies its a 1 horse race. My vote is utterly irrelevant as I reside in one of the safest Tory seats. Same is true for the vast majority of electorate. Only the small minority of people who live in marginals have any say in who governs us.

You're good on this kids' stuff Rog.

Take your point on the election, I'm in exactly the same situation, but there are at least four or five 'runners' in most constituencies so a 'minority' majority is at least more acceptable.

[Gaspode]

To pick up on Gaspode (by the way, who made a comment regarding voting a few months ago that contributed to my decision to vote out as initially I was in a remain position)...

I disagree that it's wrong to abstain from voting. Voting should reflect your will, and if you don't have a position of will then your vote does not represent you, and only provides an inaccurate representation of the nations feelings. Not everyone is physically / mentally capable of researching certain elements, and many don't have a vested interest. I wouldn't want my vote cancelled out by someone tossing a coin.

I'm not sure if I should feel happy or guilty that I swayed your position Adi

I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't be allowed to abstain (nor am I in favour of compulsory voting) - but I do have a problem with 'remainers' trying to claim the non-voters as being 'on their side' of the argument. There was plenty of time for people to get involved in finding out the facts and I would suggest that those with enough interest made sure they voted - one way or the other. Those that didn't vote had their own reasons not to, but we have to take the result as it stood - and that is that 52% of those who had the inclination to vote, chose to vote leave - a majority according to the terms set out in the referendum rules.
We were not led out of the EU by a minority because we have no idea which way those who didn't vote would have chosen - if some of those folk disagree with the outcome, that's something they will have to live with - but ultimately, they had their chance to mark their cross and chose not to take it.....

[ramAnag]

The only way to get a true majority is to make voting compulsory, but this takes away people's freedom of decision whether to vote. Also, would you have an abstaining box on the voting form? This would probably lead to another minority decision.

If we assume that the non voters would have abstained, we would have had a result of 37% to leave, 34% to remain and 29% abstaining. What outcome would you accepted from a vote like that, Anag?

Fair question. Voting is compulsory in twenty odd countries I think, including Australia and Belgium. I believe that those who don't vote are fined if their reason for not voting is not 'acceptable' and it leads to around 95% of the electorate actually attending a polling station.

Having said that, a 'spoiled' paper counts as casting a vote which takes away the problem of someone's 'freedom of decision not to vote' and the need for an 'abstain' box.

I think there's a lot to be said for operating such a system where General Elections are concerned.

In the case of referenda...my personal opinion is that the same rules should apply and yes, I would have an abstain box. In a 'two horse' race I believe there should have to be a majority of at least 51% and then a 'sliding scale' so that, according to the number of choices the size of the necessary majority reduces accordingly.

Again having said all that, I can't think of a single issue where a referendum provides an appropriate method of reaching a major political decision. The whole question of EU membership and the consequences of retaining or sacrificing membership are just too complex for the majority of us ordinary folk. We elect a government to make such decisions on our behalf and it was only political shenanigans from Cameron that led to this particular referendum.

[AdiSalisbury]

Haha, you didn't sway it, but challenged my perspective on one aspect, just one small piece of the jigsaw.

[BaaLocks]

They have compulsory voting in Oz, works for them. I personally don't like the idea but after the last election was very much in favour of a 'None Of The Above' as an option on all ballot papers. Thinking it through a bit I'm not quite sure how it would work but we currently only have one way to register disinterest in the political system and that is to not vote - the trouble with that being it is hard to determine whether it is due to laziness or positive disengagement. I find it rather interesting that the automatic reaction to a low turnout is that somehow the public are failing the system whereas the truer analysis would be that it is the system that is failing the voters by failing to provide anything worth walking to the local school or village hall to vote for.

[BaaLocks]

We were not led out of the EU by a minority

No, we were led out of the EU on a tissue of lies, false conclusions and unanswered question. BTW - this is not just a criticism of Boris and Gove, both sides failed to truly evaluate the true cost and scale of the decision which is why it came down to one number (350m) and some scare stories on immigrants. This was the fault of making it a simple 'In/Out' answer - had it been a clearer set of considerations on the consequences of the decision then we would have had to answer the reality rather than our own conclusion of what the answer led us to. Which is why I believe we need to reconfirm our decision once we are clear on what we are getting ourselves into. It's not a second referendum, it's a more clear, more detailed, more outcome based consideration. 'If leaving the EU means no freedom of movement within the European Union (i.e. a visa needed to enter France) would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?' 'If leaving the EU means all British passport holders currently residing in the EU would have to return to the UK within two years would you still like to proceed with exit from the EU?".

To be clear, I am not suggestion a wriggle out of the decision - I don't believe that is fair to our democratic process, the decision has been made and we should respect it. However, I simply do not believe all parties understood the exam question - on all sides - and we would all benefit from just clarifying what we meant, on all sides.

[BaaLocks]

Surely we have to accept that, above all, the referendum result was never actually 'binding', that the 'majority' never represented a genuine mandate, that the matter of EU membership was hijacked by those with a different agenda and that damage has subsequently been done to our economy on an almost daily basis. Let's take serious note of the concerns expressed via the referendum but is there really any point in putting even more complex details in front of an electorate who frankly don't understand them?

I don't think it's a question of being thick or clever, educated or not, old or young - I think it more the point that when you go to a referendum you have to be clear not only on the question you are asking but that the consequences of that decision. Sadly both in the case of the Scottish independence and Brexit that was not well defined. Example: the question 'would you like to shag Angelina Jolie?' would probably get a 'yes' majority. 'Would you like to shag Angelina Jolie, realising that she expects to be flown at your expense to a private island and put up in a millionaire villa for two weeks, with costs likely to exceed £2m. Plus Brad Pitt has contacts in the mafia and will get you killed as a result?' Answer might be that you'll go upstairs and have a tug instead. OK - my example is a bit silly, nay flat out daft, but my point is that we need to make sure people truly understand what they have agreed to before we act. Interesting that I get a cooling off period if I buy a Sky Sports subscription and then read the small print but for taking a country on a path of irreversible economic direction we don't even get to sleep on it. Again, I'm not saying 'it was wrong' 'we wuz robbed' or 'it wasn't fair' but I am saying 'let's just make sure we know what we've agreed to'.

[swaledale]

I don't think it's a question of being thick or clever, educated or not, old or young - I think it more the point that when you go to a referendum you have to be clear not only on the question you are asking but that the consequences of that decision. Sadly both in the case of the Scottish independence and Brexit that was not well defined. Example: the question 'would you like to shag Angelina Jolie?' would probably get a 'yes' majority. 'Would you like to shag Angelina Jolie, realising that she expects to be flown at your expense to a private island and put up in a millionaire villa for two weeks, with costs likely to exceed £2m. Plus Brad Pitt has contacts in the mafia and will get you killed as a result?' Answer might be that you'll go upstairs and have a tug instead. OK - my example is a bit silly, nay flat out daft, but my point is that we need to make sure people truly understand what they have agreed to before we act. Interesting that I get a cooling off period if I buy a Sky Sports subscription and then read the small print but for taking a country on a path of irreversible economic direction we don't even get to sleep on it. Again, I'm not saying 'it was wrong' 'we wuz robbed' or 'it wasn't fair' but I am saying 'let's just make sure we know what we've agreed to'.

You make some very sensible points, there was a discussion today on the Radio how the BBC was so anxious to appear impartial *because it is legally obliged to do so) that there was not enough criticism of either sides arguments, the £350 million to the NHS" plus Farages picture of refugees just two examples which werent challenged enough. What this meant is that other than by acting on instincts or preformed prejudices people really did not have enough information to make an informed decision.

Interestingly Trump and his outlandish statements are causing issues for the American media, because there the mainstream press is impartial, there isn't the partisan agendas that our mainstream media have - cable TV isa diferent matter as anyone who has wtahced FOX news will know! A review of Trump's utterings has shown that around 70% of what he says is false, but he has got away with it until now because of a fear of being overly critical of him.

Trump is of course doing what Farage and the other Brexits did, which is to identify peoples genuine fears and then exaggerate them or find convenient scapegoats for people to latch onto.

On the Referendum, yes 52% of those voting voted in favour, but it was an advisory referendum, so it would not be anti democratic to hold another once the terms of any deal for exit from the EU were known .