[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Pann]

Wrong way round, they entered into talks with Labour (after Brown stepped down to try and boost the success of the talks) however it instantly became obvious Labour had no interest in staying in power and were more interested in their upcoming leadership battle than leading a coalition*, so the LDs then had no choice but to approach the Tories, here's an article excerpt from it from the time:


*In fairness Labour made the right call, had they lead a coalition in 2010 then they would have taken most of the blame for implementing austerity, selling Royal Mail, etc etc and been even worse off in the polls in 2015/2017/now, we would still have got a Tory majority in 2015 and an EU referendum.

No, it isn't.

'Proposed coalition of 2010

After the hung parliament in 2010, the Liberal Democrats, as they had indicated they would do so prior to the election,[3] first began negotiations with the Conservatives—the party that had won the most votes and seats—about the possibility of forming a government; but, after talks appeared to have stalled, complementary negotiations were undertaken with Labour.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lib%E2...lition_of_2010

It was after the LDs decided to back the Tories that Lab conceded defeat.

"A close ally of Gordon Brown has suggested to the BBC that Labour are close to conceding defeat in their efforts to do a deal to stay in power.

The BBC's Nick Robinson said he was told the Lib Dems had decided to back the Tories and Labour would regroup as the only "progressive" party."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8674103.stm

The article you've quoted even links to a statement - welcoming the opening of talks with Lab - written by the author which states; "The fact that talks with the Conservatives have failed to come up with agreement at this stage suggests that this possibility has run its course."

https://www.socialliberal.net/2010/0...ks-with-labour

[Fkiolaris]

Kind of lol, over the past half a year whenever I've pointed out that a Leave result would be impossible to repeat due alone to the swing in support to Remain gained from Leave voters dying of old age and Remain voters becoming old enough to vote (ignoring the added swing to Remain gained from people changing their mind and the skewed turnout not repeating) Brexiteers have whined that they don't believe it and it must be a conspiracy theory or project fear. But now the media are finally choosing to print/explain the situation too ^^

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a9149491.html

That is a mistaken and wrong overall assumption to make. Yes, the numbers you quote are potentially true and I agree with the notion that there are more people now in the age-group that voted overwhelmingly to remain, while a big chunk of the group with the highest percentage of Brexiteers has died. However, you only need to talk to people around to see that there is an unknown number of people who voted remain and have now changed their mind. The most common reasons I see for that are:

1) UK media stories that essentially the "bad" EU wants to punish the "good" UK to set an example.
2) The "that's what people voted for" group.
3) The people that are fed-up and want this thing done.

I present counter-arguments to all of the above and sometimes it makes them think about things, but some people have definitely went 100% the other way. Again, I have no way to establish such a number, but don't repeat the same mistake of the Remain campaign during the referendum where they took things for granted.

As a final note, a good number of people for me would vote differently this time because they were/are fed-up and simply want to vote against the government. In the referendum the government was officially "Remain", but now it is "Leave". What this number is though, is once again anybody's guess.

[caervek]

That is a mistaken and wrong overall assumption to make.

It's neither incorrect nor an assumption, like I said I have been pointing these facts out for months I was just repeating them because as I said/linked the media are now starting to run with the story.

you only need to talk to people around to see that there is an unknown number of people who voted remain and have now changed their mind.

There is yes, but it's significantly smaller than the amount who have changed from Leave to Remain for various reasons (usually because they realised they were lied too). That combined with the nullification of the turnout skew (turnout was significantly higher for Leave supporters than it was for Remain supporters, which is normal as turnout always favours change over the status quo) means that it is essentially impossible for Leave to fluke a second win if the question were asked again, the only unknown is if it would be a true Remain landslide or just a win of a few %.

[Fkiolaris]

It's neither incorrect nor an assumption, like I said I have been pointing these facts out for months I was just repeating them because as I said/linked the media are now starting to run with the story.


There is yes, but it's significantly smaller than the amount who have changed from Leave to Remain for various reasons (usually because they realised they were lied too). That combined with the nullification of the turnout skew (turnout was significantly higher for Leave supporters than it was for Remain supporters, which is normal as turnout always favours change over the status quo) means that it is essentially impossible for Leave to fluke a second win if the question were asked again, the only unknown is if it would be a true Remain landslide or just a win of a few %.

The incorrect assumption is that in a second referendum Remain would be the clear winner. That is because while the numbers you are quoting are potentially correct (I have no way to validate them, but I take your source as trusted), they are by far not the only reason having an effect in the outcome of the referendum and the change of the demographics. I mentioned a few others, but you chose to ignore them or assume once again a lower impact for them in favour of ones that support your assumption. Thus, my plea was to not repeat the mistake(s) of the Remain side during the first referendum.

And just to be clear, I would LOVE to be proven wrong as a 10000000000000% remain voter.

[Slant]

I don't think Remain would underestimate Leave in a second referendum.

What I do fear is that Remain would once more try to play a fair game, sit on the high horse, take the high road, be on the moral high ground and do all the other stupid things Leave definitely will not... Because as surely as the bear shits in the metaphorical woods, Leave will lie, cheat, steal, threaten and sell their souls to the devil himself, because propagandists and fascists... they usually don't give a shit. And the gullible gobble the easy to digest fairy tale story up like it was the best kind of LSD cotton candy sprinkled with mushroom powder...

[Kallisto]

The problem is, Remain has nothing to promise. The problems that need solving are largely local. I am not sure what exact lie Remain COULD tell.

Especially when sir dupes a lot who claims to be remain but acts like a leaver with how he insults everything european, states things like every remain argument is actually for the so called "Working Class." and argument for leave and many actually on the leave side believe that.

[Slant]

The problem is, Remain has nothing to promise. The problems that need solving are largely local. I am not sure what exact lie Remain COULD tell.

I don't know. I could come up with a truckload of lies. Lying is easy. Telling the truth in a manner that people will understand is the trick. Especially if the truth is that what you have now is the best you got. It's like a negative proof. How do you prove the absence of bad consequences without going through them?

There's a reason why science largely relies on positive proof. It's magnitudes simpler to do. And all Leave has to do is point at the current state of things, create fears and point to the EU. That's why propaganda is easy. All you need to do is scare people and they'll believe you anything. Especially if you tell them whatever scares them will go away if they follow you. Which it will, because you will stop telling them scary stories.

One of the lies they told was that the refugee wave would bury Europe under it. Germany has taken the vast majority of refugees. I'm still able to report that despite rumours, we are very much still German and very much still not an Islamic terrorist nation.

[caervek]

The incorrect assumption is that in a second referendum Remain would be the clear winner.

It's not an assumption it's a foregone conclusion, hence why the Brexiteer politicians are so dead set on avoiding a confirmatory referendum at all costs, because they still can't believe the fluked the first one and know they have zero chance of a repeat.

To put it in perspective, in the 2016 referendum the results were 51.89% Leave, 48.11% Remain, a Leave majority of 3.78% in favour of remain. If another vote was held today but only people who wanted to vote in 2016 were allowed to vote, and none of them had changed their mind, then it would be a guaranteed Remain victory due to the amount of voters who have become old enough to vote since 2016 (mostly Remain supporters) and the amount of voters who have died since 2016 (mostly Leave voters).

But it doesn't stop there, since 2016 many people have changed their mind and the vast majority of them were Leave voters, one of the biggest reasons for this is that they have since realised they were lied to during the campaign and the Brexit being pursued by Leave politicians is not the one they voted for. To put that in perspective, Boris and pals did not campaign for a no deal Brexit, they campaigned for withdrawal from the political union of the EU while remaining in the single market, because of that the vast majority of Leave voters who voted for that version of Brexit have since become Remainers as they never wanted to leave the single market and the Brexit promised to them is no longer on offer.

And it doesn't stop there either because as is well known a referendum on change always favours the change, people are less likely to come out and support the status quo because they see it as the more obvious/stable choice, and this phenomenon featured highly in the 2016 result with turnout much lower among Remain supporters (part of which can be attributed to the actual Remain campaign giving the impression it was a no brainier). That would not happen twice now people understand that the outcome isn't foregone.

So you see, a second/confirmatory referendum wouldn't be a case of who would win, but how much Remain would win by, that's the reason Farage and friends are so terrified of the prospect even when they like to claim they would win anyway.

[caervek]

-snip-

It's not an argument, it's facts, I was only repeating them because mainstream news outlets are finally starting to run articles on it so it bares repeating, as a couple of people did argue the point a few months ago when I first pointed it out.

You not liking the facts doesn't really change them, although you being a burner account does make it irrelevant, reported.

[Jessicka]

The problem is, Remain has nothing to promise. The problems that need solving are largely local. I am not sure what exact lie Remain COULD tell.

Leave have given Remain 3 years of ammunition for their lies and bullshit to be ridiculed and discredited.

Leave actually have to come out now and say what it is they actually offer, because every single thing they promised has proven an unworkable fantasy. They are now basically down to no deal, and nothing else; and they don’t even know what that is. And there’s no appetite for that. I think and hope people will be more cautious now about wanting to know exactly what’s on the table.

They shown us beyond doubt that it’s national government who’ve been responsible for everything they’ve previously blamed the EU for.

We know their playbook now because it’s not changed, so it’ll be easier and faster to shoot them down. They won’t be able to rely on their lies being around the world before the truth has its shoes on, because bullshit can just be called instantly.

[Fkiolaris]

It's not an assumption it's a foregone conclusion, hence why the Brexiteer politicians are so dead set on avoiding a confirmatory referendum at all costs, because they still can't believe the fluked the first one and know they have zero chance of a repeat.

To put it in perspective, in the 2016 referendum the results were 51.89% Leave, 48.11% Remain, a Leave majority of 3.78% in favour of remain. If another vote was held today but only people who wanted to vote in 2016 were allowed to vote, and none of them had changed their mind, then it would be a guaranteed Remain victory due to the amount of voters who have become old enough to vote since 2016 (mostly Remain supporters) and the amount of voters who have died since 2016 (mostly Leave voters).

But it doesn't stop there, since 2016 many people have changed their mind and the vast majority of them were Leave voters, one of the biggest reasons for this is that they have since realised they were lied to during the campaign and the Brexit being pursued by Leave politicians is not the one they voted for. To put that in perspective, Boris and pals did not campaign for a no deal Brexit, they campaigned for withdrawal from the political union of the EU while remaining in the single market, because of that the vast majority of Leave voters who voted for that version of Brexit have since become Remainers as they never wanted to leave the single market and the Brexit promised to them is no longer on offer.

And it doesn't stop there either because as is well known a referendum on change always favours the change, people are less likely to come out and support the status quo because they see it as the more obvious/stable choice, and this phenomenon featured highly in the 2016 result with turnout much lower among Remain supporters (part of which can be attributed to the actual Remain campaign giving the impression it was a no brainier). That would not happen twice now people understand that the outcome isn't foregone.

So you see, a second/confirmatory referendum wouldn't be a case of who would win, but how much Remain would win by, that's the reason Farage and friends are so terrified of the prospect even when they like to claim they would win anyway.

Sorry mate, but you are saying something is a guarantee mostly based on assumptions. I wish I could believe you or that you could present actual facts on everything you claim, but until then I remain unconvinced on one hand and hopeful that you are right on the other hand.

Unfortunately, I also agree with another point made here that for a big percentage of the UK population, they will only appreciate the benefits of being in the EU once they lose them and no amount of (honest) rhetoric will change that. It almost makes wish we do get a hard Brexit so that all these idiots would actually learn first-hand what they truly have and why it's never a good idea to believe the most extreme of the Tories that they will make the life of you, the middle/lower class person, any better.

[ranzino]

to be honest: 53-47 for/against XYZ is in any case a bad ratio and means the country is in deep trenches. the minority is always strong enough in numbers to throw a serious tantrum.

[caervek]

Sorry mate, but you are saying something is a guarantee mostly based on assumptions.

None of that is assumption, the three main paragraphs are all based on facts which I or others have linked prior

[Huehuecoyotl]

No, retard, a fact is not you saying "I think this". That's not a fact.

A fact refers to primary evidence or known information.

The one fact you posted was that the polls indicate a 53-47 majority for remain. However, you incorrectly deduced from that there had been a change of opinion. There has been no change of opinion, the polls were the same before the referendum.

Why do people like you exist? Can't you recognize the limitations of your intellect and shut the fuck up?

My irony meter just exploded when you launched into your little rant. Honestly it is hilarious that you would both a) attack somebody for not knowing when to shut up on alt number 4,056 on a forum you have been repeatedly banned from and b) that you attack someone for falsing claiming something as a fact then state (as a fact):

There has been no change of opinion, the polls were the same before the referendum.

The numbers are the same, certainly. But you seem to be assuming that the polling organisations would see a 53-47 result for a vote that was proven to be inaccurate and then do literally nothing to attempt to adjust the numbers to allow for their failure in 2016. You do understand that they don't just ask a bunch of people then publish the results, don't you? You do understand that they examine the base data then attempt to make a whole serious of statistical adjustments to get to a "correct" result from that base data? You do understand that they change those assumptions over time to correct for known failures in their process?

Because your childish little rant seems to indicate that you don't.

My bill for the irony detector will be in the post.

[caervek]

No, retard, a fact is not you saying "I think this". That's not a fact.

Correct, that's why the factual evidence backed information I provided wasn't me saying "I think this".

The comical thing is, I think your burner account is going to get banned very soon just like you previous burner accounts and your main, that's just my opinion, but I suspect that may soon become a factual matter xD

[Jessicka]

This is like being patronized by a village idiot. Yes, fucktard, they do all those things, but they can't adjust accurately for people who don't communicate with them, ever.
You cannot adjust for information you don't have.

This is not a one-off. Pollsters have been consistently inaccurate in almost every election since 2010, way outside the statistical margin of error. Their "adjustments" have usually made things worse, not better. The notion that they have managed to accurately identify polling errors in the referendum and magically correct them is something not even the polling companies are pretending is true.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, and it will take me all of ten seconds to set up a new one, you annoying little cunt.

This reminds me of Rumsfeld’s ‘known unknowns, and unknown unknowns’. Previously these were the latter, they’re now the former and can be corrected for.

[Forogil]

to be honest: 53-47 for/against XYZ is in any case a bad ratio and means the country is in deep trenches. the minority is always strong enough in numbers to throw a serious tantrum.

One of the major issues with polls for one-off events like this is that it is difficult to determine voter turnout.

And a 2nd referendum would change turnout again; some who thought remain was a sure thing last time will not stay at home the 2nd time, etc.

And, of course, the facts are different than the ban-evader writes - using YouGov:

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne...Snap_Final.pdf
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/question...ld-you-vote-2/

In May 2016 it was 40-40, In May 2019 it was 44-42, and in September 2019 it was 46-43.

However, the weighting of that poll may skew the result - the unweighted result of what people in September 2019 claim they voted in 2016 would have remain winning the first referendum 52-48! As I understand it they weight the numbers to adjust for that.

The adjustment assumes that remainers are bad at answering the polls, but other explanations that people are too embarrassed to tell the truth - or that many remainers don't answer the polls due to being dead.

The corresponding adjustment in the June 2016 Poll, https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.ne..._EVEOFPOLL.pdf
was tiny, as that poll had remain win by 51-49% both weighted and unweighted, but with a statistical margin of error at 1.5% - i.e. it was too close to call for the poll.

[Huehuecoyotl]

This is like being patronized by a village idiot. Yes, fucktard, they do all those things, but they can't adjust accurately for people who don't communicate with them, ever.
You cannot adjust for information you don't have.

This is not a one-off. Pollsters have been consistently inaccurate in almost every election since 2010, way outside the statistical margin of error. Their "adjustments" have usually made things worse, not better. The notion that they have managed to accurately identify polling errors in the referendum and magically correct them is something not even the polling companies are pretending is true.

My, you are an angry little person aren't you? I would suggest getting some sort of hobby to calm you down, this can't be good for your health.

And all your angry rant is showing in this case is your own ignorance. Of course you can adjust for information you "don't have". If a poll shows you one thing, and reality proves to be different you have actual information to allow you to adjust the results of your polls. To make corrections so that you can make better predictions from the (still flawed) base data.

But please, carry on throwing insults and revealing your lack of knowledge and/or understanding. But remember that every post you make gives us a better picture of who you are; even if we don't "know" anything!

[Huehuecoyotl]

The notion that pollsters have a magic fix for this is verifiably absurd - because they themselves claim nothing of the kind, have continuously failed to make accurate adjustments over successive elections, and are quite candid about the difficulty of accurate prediction moving forward.

See, this is where you fall down. You've managed to convince yourself that you are so much cleverer than everyone else. That everybody around you is some form of drooling idiot. And all of your responses, all of your deflections and insults are predicated on that.

Did I suggest - anywhere - that this was some form of magic fix? Don't bother looking, I didn't. But you've decided that was what I was saying, and argued on from that point. I'm sure a smart person like you can google their way to finding what kind of fallacious argument that is.

The political situation has been fluid in an unprecedented way these last few years. The standard battle lines that pollsters have been able to rely on for years have blurred, warped and completely broken. Making their predictions look dangerously inaccurate. And yes they've been struggling to catch up, making every new analysis of a vote likely to be out one way or the other.

But we weren't talking about all of those, either. We were specifically talking about a rerun of the vote back in 2016. Where we will be facing another vote split down the Leave and Remain faultline. A vote where, uniquely, the pollsters will be able to take the results from 2016, adapted to tie in with the reality of that vote and then apply those same adjusted criteria to polls in 2019.

So a 53-47 in favour of Remain from 2016, if pushed through the 2019 adjustments, would be expected to come out as a 48-52. So if we are getting a 53-47 prediction from the polls today, that probably would have been a 58-42 (or similar) if they used their 2016 algorithms. Your belief that the two sets of figures were basically the same, is clearly wrong.

But sure, all pollsters are idiots. All the rest of us on this forum are idiots. You are the only smart one here. Boy, all that anger and it really gets sparked off when you think that someone might be implying that you aren't the smartest person in the world ever. I wonder where that comes from?

[Forogil]

This isn't just happening here either-polling inaccurately predicted a comfortable win for Hilary in the States. Polling has alos been off in a majority of european elections.

There is a problem with polling, but an even larger even problem is that people (including political reporters) don't understand the result of polls.

Look at https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

It predicted Hillary's chance of winning at 71%, which is about the odds of rolling more than 5 with two dice - which is good, but not a sure thing you should bet your house on.

There were other polls, e.g. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...nton-5491.html
Which predicted Hillary getting 3.2% more votes than Trump at the end, and she only won the popular vote by 2.1%, so the difference was within the margin of error.

Similarly for the Brexit polls.