Paul Birch

I'm afraid you're making unwarranted assumptions. If I were in the europhilic government's shoes, forced INTO phpbb_holding a referendum on continued EU membership, I would ensure that the enabling act embodied conditions such that the referendum would give a mandate for change of the status quo only if an absolute majority of the electorate voted for that change (ie for withdrawal). Indeed, I'd probably argue for making that figure two thirds, the traditional requirement for amendments to constitutions. I might also include an additional option of "don't know or don't care" to prevent the anti-membership camp gaining undeserved apathy votes. Why should a government agree to withdraw if only a minority of the electorate said they wanted it?

SGK

Paul, don't make everything INTO phpbb_an arguement! I'm not making unwarranted assumptions, I was talking about this particular voting pattern, with an 'if' which would probably not even occur with exactly the same conditions of this poll.
Your added conditions, I fear, still don't reflect what a government might do. You missed out re-phrasing the question, or adding another question to split the OUT vote.

I can imagine something like:

I would like to remain a part of Europe and keep the pound:

I would like to be out of Europe and have a trade agreement only:

I would like to be out of Europe:

I am undecided:

Though after £20m marketing research, the questions would sound better, obviously.

Paul Birch

No, I'm sorry, but with this particular voting pattern, and the very same questions, there would not be a majority for withdrawal, still less the absolute majority that would probably be legally necessary. Only if a simple plurality of votes cast were considered binding would the outs win.

And that's before any deliberate question-rigging or the inevitable barrage of EU propaganda.

This poll is simply not yet as good news as UKIP would like it to be. We don't yet have the clear and unambiguous majority we need.

MarkR

Completely agree with Paul.
We are a long way from receiving the level of commited support for withdrawal that we would need to win a referendum.
Given the huge amount of propaganda which would be launched backed with big money, plus status quo inertia there is little chance a referendum would give the result we wish.

SGK

Paul, sometimes I just don’t get you. I have been making a few comments and trying to discuss reasonably a subject on which we fundamentally agree the most important point. i.e. the notion that an actual referendum would be manipulated by the government and this poll result would not be repeated.
You have been confrontational and have argued to the nth degree minor points that are essentially irrelevant. I have tried to steer things back on track and have tried to leave this pedantic to and fro in a dignified manner a couple of times. But you are going to stick with it to the very end and ensure you have the last word.

I don’t agree with several things that you have said, which you cannot seem to accept or let go. This seems now to be a ‘win or bust’ issue for you, which I don’t understand the point of.
I can either continue, which I have rapidly diminishing enthusiasm for, admit you’re right when I don’t think so, or just leave it – giving the same impression. Your manner of debate forces this.

So then, this voting pattern, applied as it stands to a referendum asking ‘IN or OUT’, will result in 60% OUT, 40% IN, if the ‘don’t knows’ don’t vote. Percentages are taken from votes cast, not electorate, in referenda and elections. The same if the don’t knows make their mind up according to the distribution of the ‘knows’. Slightly less if the ‘don’t knows’ split 50/50. No drastic assumptions, just simple maths. If Nigel Farage has made any of these assumptions and arrived at the conclusion that there would be a majority in a referendum, I consider this to be reasonable, as I said.
It would be, in that instance, a majority.

Assumptions that have appeared are:

That a 3rd option ‘don’t know’ will be included. This is highly unusual in referenda or elections, therefore the logical assumption is that it won’t be included, the unwarranted assumption is that it will be.

The assumption that a 66% majority will be required, or a majority of the electorate, was introduced by you, is nothing to do with the result of this poll, or the application of this voting pattern to a referendum, or the fact that a 60% (or even 50%) result would be obtained. I consider that assumption to be unwarranted.

The assumption that your dictionary is right and “real” and mine is PC and wrong/inferior is unwarranted. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. There is no god of the English language. Dictionaries reflect how people use the language and on that basis mine is probably more accurate, no matter how we may both dislike modern usage or the BBC. I added this very caveat to my post; you did not, wielding your superior tome like a sword of linguistic righteousness.

Question rigging and propaganda, and a host of other things, do not affect the application of this pattern to a referendum. A different set of options, phrased differently, under different conditions, etc etc, would cause a different result – but that would not be this voting pattern, to which I was clearly referring.

Your extreme pedantry homes in on the slightest flaw (as determined by you) like some kind of guided missile. Aspects of the discussion that are agreed on by me, or contain no hairline crack, are ignored in the pursuit of the perceived flaw. There is no acknowledgement of a point agreed on or a point well made, just a relentless pursuit of the errant thought.
Why? To what end?

This site is the UKIP forum, admittedly unofficial, but is a UKIP display window and you, as a member, are its representative. You go to extreme lengths to hound someone who essentially agrees with you INTO phpbb_humble submission.... over the use of a word. There is not even the occassional friendly quip thrown in or mention of a shared opinion.

One of your prominent figures, one of your MEPs, has decided to make the most of a poll that shows an encouraging percentage against the EU. You have accused him of spin, rubbished the figures and have not once uttered one positive word about this finding.

How am I supposed to see this? How is everyone else?

For all the intelligent and reasoned things you say on this forum, you also present the face of an impossible pedant who absolutely must have the last word. It puts me off entering INTO phpbb_discussion with you at all. And I’m not even in the opposite camp! You can’t consider this a good thing, can you? Or do you think that I am now just peeved because I ‘lost’ and it is your job to keep everyone here informed of their slightest mistakes?
I regret that this discussion has arrived at this point and wish I’d never said anything in the first place.

Paul Birch

That this poll does not give a majority for withdrawal (let alone a clear majority) is not a "minor point". It is crucial. Based on this poll we would lose, even if the government played completely fairly (on what is surely a reasonable basis that it would be wrong to take us out of the EU if only a minority voted for withdrawal).

That UKIP should never spin results beyond what the evidence supports is a basic matter of principle. That UKIP should never misuse words to give a false impression is highly relevant. That UKIP should not deceive itself is common sense.

That's not this voting pattern, but a hypothetical (and, I believe, improbable) alternative. All one can safely say at this juncture, based on this voting pattern, is that of those expressing a definite preference the outs have a clear majority. This is encouraging*, but not yet good enough.

*At least, some may think so. Personally, I found the result disappointing. We have previously seen polls in which there was a clear anti-EU majority (for example, on Nice, Maastricht and the European Constitution), well over fifty percent of those polled. That people have to employ weaseling sophistries to make this poll look good speaks volumes.

Constitutional referenda commonly require an absolute majority - or more - of the electorate. Sometimes, as in Italy, they may require a minimum turnout and a 2/3rds majority of those voting (the Vatican called for a boycott in a recent referendum in order to invalidate an expected positive result). The same is sometimes true for elections to high office (Serbia, I think it was, recently had to re-run its presidential elections because the turnout was too low and no candidate received the statutory level of support)

Mikeuk

Has the penny just dropped?

The guy is a pedantic megabore. No wonder he lives on his own.:wink:

WindupMerchant

Anthony Butcher

Don't make it personal. Argue the point or ignore it please.

Bobby-Veritas's Boy

If you can't convince the converted how do you expect to convert the undecided? Singing from the same hymn sheet would be a good place to start!