EU Referendum - in or out?

[MartinCarpenter]

Well, firstly if you're making a decision on behalf of multiple generations going forwards you really want to make sure it is the settled will and is going to remain the settled will for the plausible future.

Also of course, what anything either side of ~60-40 either way suggests is actually compromise. Which there is nearly always quite a bit of room for. (definitely so for Scottish Indy/the EU!).

Ideal would be something like setting a threshold where the issue is 'dead' either way - say 60-40. Anything in between and you schedule in another poll in say 10 years and try for compromise measures in the mean time.

So for something like Scottish independence that'd be more devolution measures - with a serious stick to make sure you really got them! For the EU you'd do fairly similar. You actually got something a bit like this with the Scotland vote - just not so formally defined - and may well with the EU vote if we stay in. If we leave/Scotland had split off you wouldn't have done.

Maybe its all too complex/rational. Oh well.

[Alistair Campbell]

The problem with a close election is that the result can effectively be randomised by things like how accurate the register is, whether you allow certain people the vote (16 and 17 year olds, non-UK EU Nationals, prisoners etc.) or even by things like the weather on the day, if voters are ill or absent, or fraud. (And that’s before you consider the electoral system or whether a rogue independent stands…)

More widely, elections are just a snap-shot view of opinion, albeit with a campaigning period. Opinion can easily shift from 55-45 one way to 45-55 the other (and back again), in a matter of days. (Regular and partial elections (e.g. as for the US Senate) can serve to address this issue).

Certain constitutional changes will take years to achieve, and perhaps a generation for benefits to accrue – it is not the sort of decision you want to take lightly, or to reverse.

Given the randomness involved, it would seem likely that if you hold enough referendums (I’m currently working on the assumption that this is the correct plural, despite what Andrew Neil says) you will eventually get the result you (don’t) want, at which point referendums will cease. It seems a bit odd to play referendum roulette and make major (and not easily reversible) decisions on a coin toss, or roll of a die.

Of course, setting a threshold has an unfortunate history in Scotland with the “Cunningham Rule” applying at the 1979 referendum. The concept of the “settled will of the people” was invoked to justify another go. Two years ago, we were told that the Indy vote was a “once in a lifetime” opportunity, but for some people the electorate gave the wrong answer.

There is a certain irony in some in the SNP espousing very similar pro-union arguments to those they decried a couple of years back. Elsewhere on this site (and some time ago) I challenged the assertion that Scots were necessarily more pro-Europe. At that time, I believe that was the case (as indicated by the polls). Now, the situation has changed with Scots claiming, as Craig says, to be more pro-EU than their English counterparts – although to what extent that is influenced by a desire to be seen to be different is unclear.

The SNP is also steering a narrow course between implicitly seeking a second Indy ref (and keeping true nationalists on-side) but not explicitly wanting one (since it may not win it, and it needs “Unionist” votes to get elected). Their support for the EU seems lukewarm at best to me.

Indeed, a simple majority is not necessarily sufficient to represent a consensus. I find it difficult to justify a democratic decision where the wishes of the majority can be outvoted by the wishes of a minority.

So no vetos?

[Alex Holowczak]

Indeed, a simple majority is not necessarily sufficient to represent a consensus. I find it difficult to justify a democratic decision where the wishes of the majority can be outvoted by the wishes of a minority.

So no vetos?

I imagine vetos must have their place in some situations, but they can't democratic.

[MartinCarpenter]

Depends how big the minority getting the veto is - they were very much required for some stuff in Northern Ireland for instance.

I guess I'd forgotten the cynical reason to have this referendum + the Scottish one as all or nothing 50/50 affairs - the politicans launching them were very confident they'd win them and wanted a 'clean' win. Rather misjudged in both cases you'd think.

[NickFaulks]

but they can't democratic.

According to Winston Churchill, "it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.

Democracy has its bad patches, with the current century so far being one of them, but does seem to bounce back.

[Matt Mackenzie]

Depends how big the minority getting the veto is - they were very much required for some stuff in Northern Ireland for instance.

I guess I'd forgotten the cynical reason to have this referendum + the Scottish one as all or nothing 50/50 affairs - the politicans launching them were very confident they'd win them and wanted a 'clean' win. Rather misjudged in both cases you'd think.

That wasn't the primary reason for this one at least.

Rather it was about the PM keeping his own party together and supposedly spiking the guns of another. That's gone well.......

[John Clarke]

Well folks: today's the day.

Do give this matter your most careful consideration, and be sure to make your voice heard. The whole thing looks to me like a true dilemma, i.e. a choice between equally unpalatable alternatives.

Stay in, and remain subject to those crazy officials in Brussels and elsewhere, plus unrestricted immigration?
(NB: my opposition to the latter is solely on environmental grounds - the UK's population simply can't be allowed to grow indefinitely, in a restricted land area, without an ultimate disastrous degradation of the habitat.)

Or opt out, and face an uncertain financial future? Quite frankly, I'm dashed if I know.

Whatever the outcome, I wish the old country well. and hope it will prove capable of making the best of it.

I'll be following the results with keen interest.

And now: VOTE!

[Jonathan Rogers]

Well, a vote for Brexit would make no sense at all if you are that concerned about the environment. The fact that we have cleaner water and beaches, and various environmental laws in place, area largely down to our EU membership; and few people seriously doubt that the right wingers behind Brexit would abolish most of these laws which get in the way of profits for various big companies, airlines and other polluters. (Well, many right wing Brexit supporters are also climate change deniers, including our ECF President).

[Mick Norris]

Well folks: today's the day.

Do give this matter your most careful consideration, and be sure to make your voice heard. The whole thing looks to me like a true dilemma, i.e. a choice between equally unpalatable alternatives.

Stay in, and remain subject to those crazy officials in Brussels and elsewhere, plus unrestricted immigration?
(NB: my opposition to the latter is solely on environmental grounds - the UK's population simply can't be allowed to grow indefinitely, in a restricted land area, without an ultimate disastrous degradation of the habitat.)

Or opt out, and face an uncertain financial future? Quite frankly, I'm dashed if I know.

Whatever the outcome, I wish the old country well. and hope it will prove capable of making the best of it.

I'll be following the results with keen interest.

And now: VOTE!

Vote Remain - make Mick's job easier

[Christopher Kreuzer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36603508

Resident Jodie Rose said flooding in the area would "have a big effect" on people voting in the referendum. "My Nan is 89 years of age and she's already said that she won't be going out to vote," she said.

The media are only allowed to report on a few things related to the election while voting is ongoing, the weather being one of them.

[Matt Mackenzie]

In areas not affected by flooding, turnout appears to be decent.....

[MartinCarpenter]

Well you'd hope so. Its a hugely significant sort of thing - much more so than a general election even as it is committal for such a long time period.

[Christopher Kreuzer]

In areas not affected by flooding, turnout appears to be decent.....

Where are the reports of the turnout so far?

This is moderately interesting:

https://yougov.co.uk/turnout-o-meter/

[Mick Norris]

They were expecting turnout marginally above the General Election, so in the late 60s, maybe early 70s

The weather may have scuppered that, and may reflect in the margin of the results if the areas affected were more pro one side or the other (and yes, do realise that getting flooded is more relevant than how you vote)

I realise I'm a bit late with the vote remain make Mick's job easier message!

[Christopher Kreuzer]

getting flooded is more relevant than how you vote

Sure, if your actual property or residence has been flooded. Do they accept that for emergency proxies? I know medical emergencies are covered, but apparently being stranded abroad by French strikes isn't being accepted as a reason for an emergency proxy.

If, on the other hand, it is simply being adverse to travelling through a bit of rain, that is poor. Maybe in cities the polling stations are more local and easier to get to? Hell and high water wouldn't stop some people voting today.

What I don't get is why people register to vote and then... don't vote. I don't mean those with genuine reasons, but those who forget or just can't be bothered. Is it because getting to the polling station is too difficult or people don't know where their polling station is or don't receive/lose their polling card (telling them where to vote)? Would some form of online/digital voting help increase turnout?