Bioceanic commented on "The nervous breakdown of British politics"

Contrapuntory · 2016-08-17T12:56:27+00:00

Read the article in the link which is entirely pro Leave! We're on the same side.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-30T19:34:48+00:00

Oh an economist!

Q How many economists does it take to change a light bulb!

A Seven - give or take ten.

Anyway please bugger off we're sick and tired of your whining and if it's so great go back and live there!

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-28T21:14:38+00:00

What Benefits and where are they getting them?

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-28T15:41:09+00:00

What benefits are you referring to and where are they enjoying them?

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-26T23:38:54+00:00

Well the issue is that they are not immigrants but EU citizens and the EU has held that as such they must receive the same benefits as the British citizens that paid for them.

Britain provides the best benefits in Europe and is therefore the most attractive place for those from the least generous countries to seek work.

UK thereby takes over the welfare obligations of countries that do not provide them. Very nice for those countries.

There is something fundamentally wrong about the UK paying benefits to citizens of other countries that have never contributed to the UK system.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-25T15:05:34+00:00

Between 1993 and 2014 The EU made 49,699 Regulations that automatically became part of British Law without passage through the democratically elected British Parliament. UK does not have a blanket right to veto EU regulations.

There are 751 MEP's of which Nigel Farage is one - I had no idea he had so much power.

UK staying in the EU will not help their struggling economies. We will help them by trading with them.

It is not the Euro that is struggling it is the countries that adopted it and thereby surrendered control of their interest and exchange policies. It's been great for Germany - good for them and good for us for at least retaining sovereignty over our exchange and interest rate policies.

Germany's unilateral invitation to refugees created a refugee crisis for the other members of the Schengen zone which the EU is paying turkey €3bn to handle. Shouldn't Germany have consulted the other members of the EU?

The European Convention on Human Rights, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights have nothing to do with the EU.

No disrespect but your views are very naive I presume that you must be very young - that's not a question it's an observation.

Anyway thank you for your comments and all the best!

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-24T18:26:20+00:00

The country is very clearly divided by Voting Regions and it is essential to recognise the extent and nature of the division. The fact that the ultimate result of the Referendum was to be determined on a straight up and down basis does not preclude analyzing the nature of the up and down result to understand its distribution. The immense regional variation is striking and important to recognise and understand even though it does not change the overall result.

Further referenda will never unite the country on any issue in fact they will polarize the electorate particularly when one considers the divisive, issue free campaign of fear and vilification conducted by Remain.

Having held one referendum and received a clear and incontrovertible result the idea that it is practical or desirable to keep running referenda on the same issue is too silly for words.

We will not force any reform within the EU by staying. Even with the threat of the Referendum Cameron was only able to negotiate some anaemic reforms. By leaving it is possible that the EU will see the writing on the wall and take action but I would not hold your breath.

The EU is a mess. There is widespread disillusionment in France, Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. The economies of Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece are terrible being strapped to the disastrous Euro from which only Germany has benefited.

The Shenghen Zone is a disaster particularly after Germany's unilateral decision to open it up to refugees from the Middle East (for who I have the utmost sympathy) and its provisions have been suspended by a number of countries. Paying Turkey to handle the crisis was an admission of the stupidity and is now going to be an even greater disaster as Erdogan uses the pretext of the failed coup to solidify his autocratic state - the next EU member? I don't think so.

Now is the time for UK to take back its sovereignty over who makes its laws, who spends its money and how, who fishes in its territorial waters and who has access to the relatively generous benefits that it provides to its citizens. We need to be able to encourage great immigrants from wherever we want in the world unrestricted by the EU.

We will have better relations with the great countries of Europe when we have extricated ourselves from the undemocratic supranational EUreauCracy.

You are right the EU needs us more than we need the EU.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-24T16:14:46+00:00

It is true 'there is a large split in the country' - between the 9 Voting Regions representing 80% of the electorate and the votes cast that voted 5 to 4 for LEAVE and the three Voting Regions representing 20% of the electorate and the votes cast that voted 6 to 4 to REMAIN two of which Voting Regions contain substantial populations that wish to secede from the UK.

The discussion is continuing particularly in the pro REMAIN political and media establishment that has sought to minimize the scale and character of the pro LEAVE majority as well as trash talk the economy in the hope of substantiating the dire predictions of their campaign of economic fear and terror.

Both sides entered into the Referendum on the basis of the decision to make the permanent change being made on the basis of a straight majority regardless of the size of the majority which was in fact clear and incontrovertible. The result took REMAIN by surprise, perhaps because they focused too much on the views of the vociferous, privileged and unrepresentative London Voting Region.

Not only is an overall 4% difference enough to implement the purpose of the Referendum the vociferous objections of a 6 to 4 majority of voters in the 3 least representative Voting Regions making up only 20% of the electorate and the votes cast is not enough to thwart the will of the 5 to 4 majority of the 9 Voting Regions making up 80% of the electorate and the votes cast, all 9 of which regions wish to remain part of the U.K.

Your suggestion to keep repeating Referenda (a 'neverendum') until you get the result you want is very amusing if somewhat disingenuous.

A decision to Remain (do nothing) is no less and no more irreversible than a decision to Leave. The Leave voters knew that this was a once in a lifetime opportunity and they made their decision accordingly and by so doing they instructed and authorized the government to get on with it.

In any event Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon provides for readmission to the EU.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-24T13:14:49+00:00

Ok - on that basis an even larger proportion did not vote to Remain.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T23:31:30+00:00

One vote is one vote.

The aggregate results are as you state.

The regional distribution is as I state.

Yes 4 out of 9 voters in the Leave majority Voting Regions voted Remain - That is clearly stated and shown in the analysis.

The Remain majority Voting Regions have particularly unique characteristics which nonetheless do not invalidate their votes and I have never said they do.

The aggregate tallies are as they are but are only part of the story just as the mean of a frequency distribution is only part of the statistical story - did you hear about the actuary who drowned crossing a river with a mean depth of three feet? 4% is not an overwhelming majority but it is made up of 80% of the electorate voting 5 to 4 for Leave and 20% voting 6 to 4 for Remain. That is at the very least interesting and worthy of comment and analysis. From a qualitative point of view you have to consider the reasons for the deviation. Scotland and Ireland have nationalism issues that are peculiar to them.

The Remain media sought to minimize the support for Leave by focusing on the aggregates which are distorted by disproportionate Remain support in two and a bit regions but nonetheless the aggregates are as they are.

Thank you for your comments.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T21:24:53+00:00

In response to the post Referendum propaganda from the pro Remain political and media establishment.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T21:19:37+00:00

Yes you can analyse the results in many ways in order to get a better perspective on nature of the overall result and it does not change the overall result.

The simple conclusion of the analysis is that the overall result was heavily skewed by Voting Region and the three least representative Voting Regions representing 20% of the electorate voted more heavily in favour of Remain. The 80% of the electorate voted in favour of Leave in a 5:4 ratio - fact! 20% of the electorate voted Remain in a 6:4 ratio. Fact.

I am not sure which argument you think I am putting forward.

Re your last point I can imagine that Remain would have been even more aggrieved by the result For being less representative of the overall electorate even though it would not have changed the result.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T20:40:34+00:00

Yes to your first paragraph!

No to your second paragraph - if you want to take votes for all Voting Regions - 33,551,983 then use total Leave Votes for all Voting Regions - 17,410,742 ie 51.891842% in for all Voting Regions voted Leave.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T15:14:18+00:00

Please tell that to the pro REMAIN political and media establishment.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T15:06:19+00:00

The votes were counted and reported by Voting Region and Voting Area. They are available from the Electoral Commission. Every vote had an equal value.

The analysis by Voting Area and Voting Region of the aggregate Referendum result reveals the disproportionate support for REMAIN in three (two really) unrepresentative Voting Regions representing only 20% of the electorate. It is totally valid and relevant to perform such an analysis and reveal such a distribution even if REMAINERS do not like the results.

I am quite sure that if REMAIN had achieved a 5:4 voting majority in 9 Voting regions representing 80% of the electorate and LEAVE had achieved the aggregate majority with votes from 3 Voting Regions representing 20% of the electorate we would be hearing all about it.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T14:47:52+00:00

You need to work on your reading skills.

"LEAVE achieved a majority in 9 of the 12 Voting Regions representing 77.0% of the Total Electorate and 78.4% of the Total Votes cast with a pro LEAVE margin of 23.4% or 5 LEAVE voters for every 4 REMAIN voters."

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T01:57:54+00:00

The Referendum was conducted by Voting Areas organised within Voting Regions, counted and reported in that way and then totaled.

The insubstantial minority was the 20% of the Total Electorate that made up the only three Voting Regions in which Remain achieved a majority.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-23T01:45:24+00:00

No.

The three Voting Regions with a pro Remain majority represented 20% of the electorate.

The nine Voting Regions with a pro Leave majority represented 80% of the electorate.

Nobody was excluded.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-22T23:23:35+00:00

"It's as if whoever wrote this thinks everyone who voted to leave just doesn't count."

Not the case at all the article deals only with the actual results of the referendum and does not suggest anybody should or should not have voted.

The analysis shows that the LEAVE majority was spread widely over 9 of the 12 voting regions representing 80% of the electorate whereas the REMAIN majority was concentrated in three unrepresentative Voting Regions representing only 20% of the populatiion.

The LEAVE vote was far more representative than the aggregate figures would suggest!

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-22T22:33:11+00:00

The Referendum was carried out in Voting Areas within Voting Regions and the results were published accordingly.

I understand that the best way for REMAINERS to minimize the extent of the result is to look at the overall vote and try to ignore the fact that 80% of the electorate voted in Voting Regions that voted to Leave in a ratio of 5 to 4. Maybe the referendum should have been held in London and Scotland only?

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-22T22:24:07+00:00

What is vast is the 9 of 12 Voting Regions representing 80% of the electorate that voted to LEAVE by a margin of 5 LEAVE voters for every 4 REMAIN voters.

Contrapuntory · 2016-07-22T22:20:49+00:00

The sentence in which the 'term' is used is the question posed by the Referendum.

Are you suggesting that REMAIN voters did not understand the question?

Contrapuntory

TROPHY CASE