FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
When Theresa May campaigned to remain

When Theresa May campaigned to remain

(2:54) June 2016 - After weighing up the facts, Theresa May came to the conclusion that the UK should remain in the EU.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: fred567 (293 days ago)

So, she is now obeying the will of the people - that is called democracy

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

So, she is now obeying the will of the people - that is called democracy

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Humer (293 days ago)

I love the fact that the British public would sooner have a Prime Minister who was once against Brexit than elect a party who campaigned for Brexit for nearly 25 years.

ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment

I love the fact that the British public would sooner have a Prime Minister who was once against Brexit than elect a party who campaigned for Brexit for nearly 25 years.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (292 days ago)

Exactly. Who wants UKIP?

ReplyVote up (101)down (92)
Original comment

Exactly. Who wants UKIP?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

Why on earth would we vote for the right wing? A bunch of ineducated deluded no-hopers.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

Why on earth would we vote for the right wing? A bunch of ineducated deluded no-hopers.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (292 days ago)

How is it the will of the people when only 34% of the entire electorate voted Brexit? Actually, post referendum surveys suggest that had everyone voted, Remain would have won. LINK

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

How is it the will of the people when only 34% of the entire electorate voted Brexit? Actually, post referendum surveys suggest that had everyone voted, Remain would have won. LINK

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

More people voted to leave than to stay. That's how the system works. Now it's up to those people to show how their decision was the correct one. They seem to be failing so far.

Don't complain about the system just because it doesn't lead to the answer you want.

ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment

More people voted to leave than to stay. That's how the system works. Now it's up to those people to show how their decision was the correct one. They seem to be failing so far.

Don't complain about the system just because it doesn't lead to the answer you want.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (292 days ago)

Yes, more people did vote to Brexit, but it's not the will of the people. It's the will of 34% of those eligible to vote.

ReplyVote up (101)down (91)
Original comment

Yes, more people did vote to Brexit, but it's not the will of the people. It's the will of 34% of those eligible to vote.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

The only way of gauging 'the will of the people' is through votes, so you can't factor in those who choose not to. Like any survey, poll, or election, you have to project from the available sample. By your logic, we can never describe anything as 'the will of people' unless every human in society has been asked. Unlike most surveys that have to infer from a tiny sample, at least with the referendum a vast majority were asked.

ReplyVote up (98)down (101)
Original comment

The only way of gauging 'the will of the people' is through votes, so you can't factor in those who choose not to. Like any survey, poll, or election, you have to project from the available sample. By your logic, we can never describe anything as 'the will of people' unless every human in society has been asked. Unlike most surveys that have to infer from a tiny sample, at least with the referendum a vast majority were asked.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (291 days ago)

The term "the will of the people" implies that more people want A than B. In the case of Brexit, it is more accurate to say "the will of the people who voted".

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

The term "the will of the people" implies that more people want A than B. In the case of Brexit, it is more accurate to say "the will of the people who voted".

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (290 days ago)

Pedantic semantics. By your rules we have to qualify every survey and poll to remind people it is only a sample, and we can't say the will of the people without asking every human. At least with the referendum, everyone had the chance. Sadly, the will of the people WAS Brexit (well it is probably more accurate to say the will of those who were alive at this time, registered to vote in this country, with no more than 2 legs, etc).

ReplyVote up (99)down (101)
Original comment

Pedantic semantics. By your rules we have to qualify every survey and poll to remind people it is only a sample, and we can't say the will of the people without asking every human. At least with the referendum, everyone had the chance. Sadly, the will of the people WAS Brexit (well it is probably more accurate to say the will of those who were alive at this time, registered to vote in this country, with no more than 2 legs, etc).

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (290 days ago)

It is not pedantic semantics. If you say "the will of the people", it means most people, not most of a subset of people. Claiming 'Brexit is the will of the people' is misinformation. So is claiming 'Brexit is NOT the will of the people'. We don't know whether or not Brexit is the will of the people, so Brexiteers should not claim it is.

Also, you don't need to ask all the people to gauge the will of the people. If 51% of the people voted, and they all voted for A, then A is the will of the people.

For Brexit to be the will of the people when 75% voted, Leave would need to have won 66% or higher of the vote.

ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment

It is not pedantic semantics. If you say "the will of the people", it means most people, not most of a subset of people. Claiming 'Brexit is the will of the people' is misinformation. So is claiming 'Brexit is NOT the will of the people'. We don't know whether or not Brexit is the will of the people, so Brexiteers should not claim it is.

Also, you don't need to ask all the people to gauge the will of the people. If 51% of the people voted, and they all voted for A, then A is the will of the people.

For Brexit to be the will of the people when 75% voted, Leave would need to have won 66% or higher of the vote.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (290 days ago)

No, it's always a subset. Even if it had been a 100% turn-out, it would still be the subset of people eligible to vote. It's just a given that the will of the peope is determined by those able and willing to vote.

I have seen you use statistics in this way, X% of climate scientists, X% of Muslims, etc etc. You didn't seem to mention it's only a percentage of the people involved in the survey. Was your pedantry taking a break?

ReplyVote up (100)down (101)
Original comment

No, it's always a subset. Even if it had been a 100% turn-out, it would still be the subset of people eligible to vote. It's just a given that the will of the peope is determined by those able and willing to vote.

I have seen you use statistics in this way, X% of climate scientists, X% of Muslims, etc etc. You didn't seem to mention it's only a percentage of the people involved in the survey. Was your pedantry taking a break?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (289 days ago)

How I use statistics has no bearing on whether or not Brexit is "the will of the people". Claiming it is, is intentionally misleading. Brexiteers say "it's the will of the people" to suggest they have a stronger mandate than they actually have.

If Leave won 66% or more of the vote, then they could legitimately claim it's the will of the people. But they only got 52%.

Can a union legitimately claim "the will of their members" if 75% voted one way, but the turnout was only 30%?

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

How I use statistics has no bearing on whether or not Brexit is "the will of the people". Claiming it is, is intentionally misleading. Brexiteers say "it's the will of the people" to suggest they have a stronger mandate than they actually have.

If Leave won 66% or more of the vote, then they could legitimately claim it's the will of the people. But they only got 52%.

Can a union legitimately claim "the will of their members" if 75% voted one way, but the turnout was only 30%?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (289 days ago)

The way you use statistics shows that your position is inconsistent:

If you think it's unnecessary to mention that a statistic about climate scientists isn't actually about all climate scientists, only about the ones asked, then you should also think it's unnecessary to say that the will of the people isn't about everybody, just those who voted. Either they're both intentionally misleading, or neither are.

Samples are used to generalise for wider groups.

ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment

The way you use statistics shows that your position is inconsistent:

If you think it's unnecessary to mention that a statistic about climate scientists isn't actually about all climate scientists, only about the ones asked, then you should also think it's unnecessary to say that the will of the people isn't about everybody, just those who voted. Either they're both intentionally misleading, or neither are.

Samples are used to generalise for wider groups.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (289 days ago)

I don't think my position is inconsistent. When quoting stats, there's always the balance between accuracy and poetic licence to consider. Scientific documents are detailed and accurate but no fun to read.

Let's look at the claim that 97% of scientists agree with AGW. Technically, it's not 97% of scientists, it's 97% of peer reviewed climate research between 1991 and 2011. Doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. Since simplifying it to "97% of scientists" doesn't change the underlying message - which is that the science is not in doubt - I would say it's OK to simplify.

Compare with "Brexit is the will of the people". Technically, Brexit is not the will of the people, 66% is necessary for that, but it's not pedantic because the underlying message changes. If Brexit IS the will of the people, Brexiteers have a clear mandate. If Brexit is NOT the will of the people, then the mandate is much weaker. That's why I don't think it's OK to simplify "Brexit is the will of those who voted" to "Brexit is the will of the people". That would be pedaling misinformation.

ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment

I don't think my position is inconsistent. When quoting stats, there's always the balance between accuracy and poetic licence to consider. Scientific documents are detailed and accurate but no fun to read.

Let's look at the claim that 97% of scientists agree with AGW. Technically, it's not 97% of scientists, it's 97% of peer reviewed climate research between 1991 and 2011. Doesn't exactly flow off the tongue. Since simplifying it to "97% of scientists" doesn't change the underlying message - which is that the science is not in doubt - I would say it's OK to simplify.

Compare with "Brexit is the will of the people". Technically, Brexit is not the will of the people, 66% is necessary for that, but it's not pedantic because the underlying message changes. If Brexit IS the will of the people, Brexiteers have a clear mandate. If Brexit is NOT the will of the people, then the mandate is much weaker. That's why I don't think it's OK to simplify "Brexit is the will of those who voted" to "Brexit is the will of the people". That would be pedaling misinformation.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (288 days ago)

.

Technically, Brexit is the will of just over half of all the people who were eligible to vote, and who cast votes in the referendum. Doesn't exactly trip of the tongue either, but the underlying message is the same - that the due electoral process was carried out, the majority were in favour of Brexit, and the mandate is there. Nearly everyone was allowed to vote, and most people who cared enough to do so wanted Brexit. As far as anyone can tell by any official means, it is the will of the people.

97% of scientists.. etc is less accurate. The underlying message isn't even about scientists, it's about research papers. It's a far smaller sample size used to make a far wider generalisation.

Your balance between accuracy and poetic license, and your decision about when it's OK to simplify, is dictated by your bias. It seems to me that you disagree with the use of statistics not when they fail to reflect the underlying message, but when you disagree with that message.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

.

Technically, Brexit is the will of just over half of all the people who were eligible to vote, and who cast votes in the referendum. Doesn't exactly trip of the tongue either, but the underlying message is the same - that the due electoral process was carried out, the majority were in favour of Brexit, and the mandate is there. Nearly everyone was allowed to vote, and most people who cared enough to do so wanted Brexit. As far as anyone can tell by any official means, it is the will of the people.

97% of scientists.. etc is less accurate. The underlying message isn't even about scientists, it's about research papers. It's a far smaller sample size used to make a far wider generalisation.

Your balance between accuracy and poetic license, and your decision about when it's OK to simplify, is dictated by your bias. It seems to me that you disagree with the use of statistics not when they fail to reflect the underlying message, but when you disagree with that message.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

Not just because of this one case. But because the system is flawed. You can't change a golf club constitution without a minimum turnout and a 2-1 majority. Don't you think that changing a national constitution deserves at least as much care?

ReplyVote up (92)down (101)
Original comment

Not just because of this one case. But because the system is flawed. You can't change a golf club constitution without a minimum turnout and a 2-1 majority. Don't you think that changing a national constitution deserves at least as much care?

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

Honestly, no. I've never understood that analogy. It's not a golf club, majority rule is long established, and a 2-1 majority with a good turn-out is very difficult to achieve in politics.

On balance, I wasn't in favour of Brexit, but I'm in favour of our democratic system and I believe Brexiteers are beginning to realise what they've done. It's always been an issue with democracy that sometimes the people can get it wrong.

ReplyVote up (101)down (96)
Original comment

Honestly, no. I've never understood that analogy. It's not a golf club, majority rule is long established, and a 2-1 majority with a good turn-out is very difficult to achieve in politics.

On balance, I wasn't in favour of Brexit, but I'm in favour of our democratic system and I believe Brexiteers are beginning to realise what they've done. It's always been an issue with democracy that sometimes the people can get it wrong.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (292 days ago)

I'm in favour of our democratic system too. But that's not what we're getting. Our system is that we elect MPs who then do their best for the nation - that's representative democracy. What we have with brexit instead is that our elected representatives are doing whatever the referendum result says, no matter what their own judgement is. In other words, they are just rubber stamps. This is not representative democracy. I want my democracy back!

ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment

I'm in favour of our democratic system too. But that's not what we're getting. Our system is that we elect MPs who then do their best for the nation - that's representative democracy. What we have with brexit instead is that our elected representatives are doing whatever the referendum result says, no matter what their own judgement is. In other words, they are just rubber stamps. This is not representative democracy. I want my democracy back!

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (291 days ago)

.Do you really believe that we've lost our representative democracy just because we've had a referendum that hasn't gone your way? Try living in a non-democratic country - you'll soon learn the difference. We elect representatives not just to do their best, but to represent us. It is part of their brief to reflect the views of their constituency where such views are known.

ReplyVote up (94)down (101)
Original comment

.Do you really believe that we've lost our representative democracy just because we've had a referendum that hasn't gone your way? Try living in a non-democratic country - you'll soon learn the difference. We elect representatives not just to do their best, but to represent us. It is part of their brief to reflect the views of their constituency where such views are known.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (291 days ago)

... We also elect them to understand the issues, and present them to us. If they fail to represent them accurately, or they fail to represent us, then we get to choose different representatives.

ReplyVote up (97)down (101)
Original comment

... We also elect them to understand the issues, and present them to us. If they fail to represent them accurately, or they fail to represent us, then we get to choose different representatives.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Mesmerelda Mesmerelda (286 days ago)
Latest comment:

She already looks older from the stresses of work, and she hasn't been in the job a year yet.

ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Latest comment:

She already looks older from the stresses of work, and she hasn't been in the job a year yet.

Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Tony Blair on the different visions of Brexit
Tony Blair on the different visions of Brexit
Four activists still fighting Brexit
Four activists still fighting Brexit
Emmanuel Macron - Brexit, Frexit and Trump
Emmanuel Macron - Brexit, Frexit and Trump
Should the UK hold a second EU referendum?
Should the UK hold a second EU referendum?
Nigel Farage backs second referendum on Brexit
Nigel Farage backs second referendum on Brexit