BBC HardTalk (Stephen John Sackur) Catalunya

[j1979]

I Just watched Hardtalk with Stephen John Sackur on BBC news 24... the episode was about catalan indipendence, on 18th Oct 2018.

In the show was the quote of decade, He was talking about opinion polls, and came out with "46% to 45!? you have failed to prove a decisive majority"

after 28 months of being told "the british people have spoken" on a 52 to 48, (now that's decisive ) it's a bit rich.


I've lived in Barcelona since 2015 and to be honest i don't take sides on the independece question, it's not my argument. But found it a strange line of attack, based on the recent history of the UK, and that i've not seen our fragile result or subsequent opionion polls questioned on BBC, ITV or even Channel 4 in such a way.

[Saracen]

While taking your point, and certainly not being particularly current with Catalan independence, I'd suggest that it is a decisive vote, though certainly not an overwhelming one.

How big a majority does a candidate in a UK Parliamentary election need to confirm their seat, or unseat an incumbent? Yup, one. Not 1%, but one single, individual vote.

So that 4%-ish margin in Brexit still represented a significant margjn, of what, 1.8 million people, IIRC.

Yes, it would be better (probably either way) if it had been 80/20, not least because it'd shut the other 20% up pretty conclusively, but still, it's hard to argue that the 48% should get their way over the will of the 52%. There certainly isn't anything democratic about that. Especially when all it does is preserve a status quo that we, the people, were denied a say in in tbe first place.

As for Catalonia, my view is that that is a matter for the people of Catalonia, not me.

[scaryjim]

... Yes, it would be better (probably either way) if it had been 80/20, not least because it'd shut the other 20% up pretty conclusively....

Sorry, am I really supposed to believe that, if it'd been 80/20 in the other direction, Farage, UKIP et al. would all go away politely and keep quiet?

Throughout the whole lead up to the vote the entire Leave side - whether part of the official campaign or not - were making a big thing out of it not being the final word if it was a narrow win for Remain. But apparently a narrow win for Leave is "will of the people" and absolutely unquestionable.

I really wouldn't expect Leave supporters to shut up and put up if it had been 48/52 in the other direction, so I'm not sure why Remain supporters are meant to?

[philehidiot]

To be fair, Farage did shut up and go away mostly once the referendum was won.

[Saracen]

Sorry, am I really supposed to believe that, if it'd been 80/20 in the other direction, Farage, UKIP et al. would all go away politely and keep quiet?

Throughout the whole lead up to the vote the entire Leave side - whether part of the official campaign or not - were making a big thing out of it not being the final word if it was a narrow win for Remain. But apparently a narrow win for Leave is "will of the people" and absolutely unquestionable.

I really wouldn't expect Leave supporters to shut up and put up if it had been 48/52 in the other direction, so I'm not sure why Remain supporters are meant to?

Farage, etc, dunno. But if it had been 80/20 the other way they could have bitched and moaned 'til the sun explodes for all the good it would have done them. No way would the overtly pro-EU establishment have paid any attention. And rightly so.

Me personally? I wouldn't have liked that result, or even 52/48 the other way, but I WOULD have accepted that the people had spoken, and not (like Ken Clarke, almost the entire LibDem party, and some others) have kept telling them they were wrong and vote again until we get it right.

If you look back, or remember one of my objections to the EU (or rather, our membership of it) is that we, the people, have never, ever been asked .... until now. It had no democratic mandate. If it had, then right or wrong, fsir enough. But it didn't.

We also here loads from remainers about "lies" told pre-referendum, but they serem to forget the collossal whoppers we were told by the Europesn Liar-in-Chief, one E. Heath PM, prior to taking us inyo the zcommon Market, and the leave/stay referendum just afterwards, about the objective, even then, which was political union. This is not even subject to dispute since one E. Heath admitted it about 20 years later.

This referendum is the single, one and only time the people have been asked about the EU. And we voted.

Nobody seriously expects pro-remain people to like it, but they could fo the decent thing and accept that, after 2 years of argument and debate, and disinformation on both sides, the people voted and they lost.

There is a lesson in that for Catalonia. Don't expdct those used to getting their own way to like it when they lose.


There is also a lesson for remainers. If you seek to subvert a democratic vote, and succeed, you seriously risk destroying what little public faith there is in our so-called democracy and getting a REAL public backlash. We've seen the rise of both hard left and hard right parties, right across Europe, and beyond. Don't rule out similar here. The US got President Trump, we could end up with PM Farage, or BJ .... or much worse.

A democratic vote is a democratic vote, and subverting that risks anarchy.

[spacein_vader]

Nobody seriously expects pro-remain people to like it, but they could fo the decent thing and accept that, after 2 years of argument and debate, and disinformation on both sides, the people voted and they lost.

I'd agree with that. I voted remain and while I still think leaving is a mistake, its the only viable option any democratic government can take. We've made our bed, time to lie in it.

[Corky34]

How big a majority does a candidate in a UK Parliamentary election need to confirm their seat, or unseat an incumbent? Yup, one. Not 1%, but one single, individual vote.

Electing a politician for however long the Catalan elections are held is a very different thing than a constitutional change, that's why it's seen as acceptable to elect a politician on the basis of a single vote as in 5 (or whatever) years time the people can make another decision, it's also why most NGO's who monitor democratic processes around the world recommend something more than simple majorities when it comes to plebiscite.

The reason being that if you instigate major constitutional change when you only have the support of 30% of the population in relation to Catalonia or 37% in relation to the UK it tends to cause more problems than it solves.

[badass]

I'd agree with that. I voted remain and while I still think leaving is a mistake, its the only viable option any democratic government can take. We've made our bed, time to lie in it.

Here, here!

The first post from a moderate on the subject of Brexit. Careful, the extremists on both sides will drown you out pretty soon.

[TeePee]

I'd agree with that. I voted remain and while I still think leaving is a mistake, its the only viable option any democratic government can take. We've made our bed, time to lie in it.

The important thing is to lie in it, turn on the TV to something good, order a pizza and enjoy spending the day in bed. Lying in it and refusing to do anything except be miserable is a path that leads to depression.

[Saracen]

Electing a politician for however long the Catalan elections are held is a very different thing than a constitutional change, that's why it's seen as acceptable to elect a politician on the basis of a single vote as in 5 (or whatever) years time the people can make another decision, it's also why most NGO's who monitor democratic processes around the world recommend something more than simple majorities when it comes to plebiscite.

The reason being that if you instigate major constitutional change when you only have the support of 30% of the population in relation to Catalonia or 37% in relation to the UK it tends to cause more problems than it solves.

I would agree with that .... had Ted Heath not taken us into the Common Market without bothering to ask us at all, and pi..erm, alienating major Commonwealth partners like Australia and New Zealand, who suddenly found themselves on the outside of the trade barriers we had been taken inside. I'm a bit surprised they seem to have forgiven us for that.

Or, for that matter, had Major had the decency to ask before signing us up to Maastricht and giving away a shedload of our vetoes. Or had Brown had the decency, before signing up for Lisbon and giving away a load more. Our constitution changed significantly with the morphing of the EEC into the EU, and without bothering to ask the people at all, so it's a bit rich to object to constitutional change when in the ONLY vote the people have EVER been given on our membership of the EU we vote to change back.

That's why I think there will be fury if the Westminster Elites conspire to negate that vote. They took us in on a lie, did Maastricht and Lisbon with no people's mandate at all, and if they now reverse that vote ... I wouldn't like to predict how visceral the reaction will be, but politicians are already held in pretty low esteem and I'd bet it will get much, MUCH worse.

[Corky34]

What i said was more directed at referendum in general than one particular referendum, however if you want to focus on the recent (is two years ago recent?) UK referendum and how we weren't asked about being taken into what was then called the European Community, not the common market, then IMO it would be incorrect to say we weren't asked.

We elected a majority Conservative government who ran on a manifesto to take us into the European Community, and yes it could be argued that general elections are multifaceted affairs but then four years later we elected a Labour government who ran on a manifesto to hold the first referendum and we choose to remain in the EC by 67%.

I understand how you don't believe that we were ever asked about the changes that took place over the years, we've discussed this before and i think you know it's not something i agree with but i do understand why you feel the way you do, however doesn't that rather undermine the current situation were in? To paraphrase you believe if there's significant change, such as the EC changing into the EU or the signing of a new treaty that the electorate should be asked, yes?

Because if that's so there's also been significant change from what we were told about leaving the EU over two years ago so shouldn't we, the electorate, be allowed to pass judgment on those changes? Shouldn't we, like we did in 1970 and 1974, be allowed to pass judgment on if the promises made have been kept.

As Mr Brexit himself said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." It's a shame Cameron didn't specify a two-thirds to one-third majority vote requirement as then we wouldn't be in this typical situation caused by plebiscite, it is after all one of the many reasons why we have a representative democracy and not a direct one.

[j1979]

we have a representative democracy and not a direct one.

Just to pick up on that point, we currently have a representative democracy that is currently pro remain, but following the "will of the British people". Seems stange as the poll of polls shows a majority for remain for all of 2018.
https://whatukthinks.org/eu/opinion-...poll-of-polls/

The accuall refurendum imo was a high tide mark, a mix of the protest vote, desperation due to austerity and genuine unfounded xenophobia. forces such as forigen funded influence on social media.

But one thing that really seems that no one has focused on is DMG media that control the Daily Mail and the Metro free paper. It's been handed out free for almost 2 decades, printing articles to discredit the EU on a daily basis. I find it odd that it's not even mentioned as a factor in the debate as to how we ended up here, and a big factor in how the high tide mark of 52% was reached.

Seems we were lead here like lambs to the kebab shop

The catalans should be given an offical vote, or at the very least able to carry out unofficial votes without the threat of violence and arrest. Seems like it's fizzeld out here now though, what with the new Spanish govenment being from a left wing position, and unionists finding their voice. Where i live close to the Espanyol Sadium south east of the main city of Barcelona, you will see many more Spanish flags than Catalan. A factor too in the UK is how many remainers thought the result was safe so didn't make as much effort to vote. I was in Barcelona with so many things happening in my life i didn't get chance to register in time to cast a postal vote, as a UK national.

The "made our bed" argument seems counter productive, we should in my opionion have a second vote once we know the deal on the table.

[Saracen]

What i said was more directed at referendum in general than one particular referendum, however if you want to focus on the recent (is two years ago recent?) UK referendum and how we weren't asked about being taken into what was then called the European Community, not the common market, then IMO it would be incorrect to say we weren't asked.

We elected a majority Conservative government who ran on a manifesto to take us into the European Community, and yes it could be argued that general elections are multifaceted affairs but then four years later we elected a Labour government who ran on a manifesto to hold the first referendum and we choose to remain in the EC by 67%.

I understand how you don't believe that we were ever asked about the changes that took place over the years, we've discussed this before and i think you know it's not something i agree with but i do understand why you feel the way you do, however doesn't that rather undermine the current situation were in? To paraphrase you believe if there's significant change, such as the EC changing into the EU or the signing of a new treaty that the electorate should be asked, yes?

Because if that's so there's also been significant change from what we were told about leaving the EU over two years ago so shouldn't we, the electorate, be allowed to pass judgment on those changes? Shouldn't we, like we did in 1970 and 1974, be allowed to pass judgment on if the promises made have been kept.

As Mr Brexit himself said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it." It's a shame Cameron didn't specify a two-thirds to one-third majority vote requirement as then we wouldn't be in this typical situation caused by plebiscite, it is after all one of the many reasons why we have a representative democracy and not a direct one.

Oh dear lord, not the "general election" argument again.

General elections are multi-issue events. They're about the economy, crime, policing, schools. the environment and a whole host of things, not a single issue. That's why we have referenda - for major single issue subjects, especially where they involve consytitutional change, like the AV vote (dog's breakfast that that was), or Scottish independence, or tne Good Friday rewuirements for reunification. But Heaven Forbid that the UK government actually bother to ask the people begore joining us up to a project for which the avowed aim, repested over and over again for nearly 70 years (and yes, it goes back to the pre-Common Market negotiations in the 50s) was the transformation of the EU into a Ruropean superstate, whatever we choose to call it, and however much some europhiles deny it, or try to rephrase it, lest it scare the plebs.

So no, on such a major, constitutional issue no general election cuts it precisely because most people are voting about taxation, employment, crime, etc. Oh, and of course the biggy, the NHS.

It is very clear from both referendum demographics, and even the MPs on both sides of the Commons divide, prepared to vote against party lines, and even 3-line whips, that even MPs don't see the EU (and leaving it) in the usual partisan, left/right, Labour/Tory way. Some of those MPs evrn state that they have and will vote the way their constituents did on the matter, even if they personally disagree. Maybe that's for fear of wn electoral backlash, or maybe it's simply respecting their constituents vote.

It is also clear from those self-same demographics that :-

a) quite a lot of long-term Labour seats voted leave, and that Labour bosses saw that as a GE threat if they crossed them,
b) more thsn a few Tory seats vited remain, while a lot voted leave.

At no time in my voting pattern, since we joined the EEC, has our membership of it been what determined my choice of party. In large part, this was because for most of that time, neither main party was supporting and certainly not pushing Leave. Yet, all those other issues I mentioned were headline, and still extremely important, issues.


If there was a single wide-based election that signalled broad feelings ion the EU, it was the pre-referendum EU elections for MEPs, in which a sufficiently large number of people voted UKIP to beat both Tories snd Labour into 2nd and 3rd places, precisely because so msny people took it asca pseudo-referrndum.

Why do you think Cameron finally agreed to an In/Out referendum? Because that EU vote convinced him that without it, that UKIP support just might erode enough Tory voter support to give a Labour win.

And yet, our "system" of Parliamentary elections is so loaded in favour of the yeo main parties that despite coming first in the vote, the best UKIP could do in the GE was maintain a single deserter vote from Tory to UKIP, and despite getting WAY more votes that either SDP or LibDems, wnd despite that punishing EU election, UKIP couldn't win a single new seat anywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting, in the light of the millions voting UKIP in the EU elections, and the millions voting UKIP in the GE and failing to win a single new seat, yet a clear simple majority voting Leave when asked directly, that any GE on 45 years of EEC/EU membership was a vote for EU membership?

Really? Seriously? Still?

As many here will have noted, I have been eurosceptic (largely on pragmatic grounds, not tje usual little-Englander dogmatic or even xenophobic reasons I've often been accused of) for quite a lonv time. Guess how many times, despite that, I've voted UKIP (or simikar) in a UK GE in some 45 years?

Not once. Not a single time.

Why? Because other things are more important at a GE, especially living in a Tory/Labour marginal.

GE's aren't about ANY single issue. They're about either picking a general philosophy (be it Lab/Tory, or Green, or whatever), or about trying to pick a candidate that best reflects (however imperfectly) your particular blend of major issues, or at best, picking an individual you think (from, generally, a realistic choice of two) that best reflects your policy preferences .... or even avoiding someone or a party that doesn't. I've voted tactically a few times, suppirting a candidate I don't want because from that choice of two with any chance of winning, he/she was at least not as bad as the other.

But what I never (yet) voted on in a GE was Europe, because it has simply nevercbeen high enoughvon the agenda. And I have pretty strong views on the EU.

We gave 'permission' in genersl elections .... ih, that's rich.

[Corky34]

Oh dear lord, not the "general election" argument again.

General elections are multi-issue events. They're about the economy, crime, policing, schools. the environment and a whole host of things, not a single issue. That's why we have referenda - for major single issue subjects, especially where they involve consytitutional change, like the AV vote (dog's breakfast that that was), or Scottish independence, or tne Good Friday rewuirements for reunification. But Heaven Forbid that the UK government actually bother to ask the people begore joining us up to a project for which the avowed aim, repested over and over again for nearly 70 years (and yes, it goes back to the pre-Common Market negotiations in the 50s) was the transformation of the EU into a Ruropean superstate, whatever we choose to call it, and however much some europhiles deny it, or try to rephrase it, lest it scare the plebs.

So no, on such a major, constitutional issue no general election cuts it precisely because most people are voting about taxation, employment, crime, etc. Oh, and of course the biggy, the NHS.

Maybe you need to tell the politicians then as they keep trotting out the line that the public have spoken, that we held a referendum where 17 million people in a country of 63 million said they wanted to leave the EU and later had a general election where 70% of people voted for parties that supported that result. That we must leave and must not be allowed more democracy, because to do so would be undemocratic despite mounting evidence that the referendum was bought and paid for with dirty money.

It is very clear from both referendum demographics, and even the MPs on both sides of the Commons divide, prepared to vote against party lines, and even 3-line whips, that even MPs don't see the EU (and leaving it) in the usual partisan, left/right, Labour/Tory way. Some of those MPs evrn state that they have and will vote the way their constituents did on the matter, even if they personally disagree. Maybe that's for fear of wn electoral backlash, or maybe it's simply respecting their constituents vote.

It is also clear from those self-same demographics that :-

a) quite a lot of long-term Labour seats voted leave, and that Labour bosses saw that as a GE threat if they crossed them,
b) more thsn a few Tory seats vited remain, while a lot voted leave.

Sorry, you've lost me. What does partisan politics have to do with referendums?

At no time in my voting pattern, since we joined the EEC, has our membership of it been what determined my choice of party. In large part, this was because for most of that time, neither main party was supporting and certainly not pushing Leave. Yet, all those other issues I mentioned were headline, and still extremely important, issues.

Honestly i wouldn't know as i don't know, and don't care to know, what your voting pattern is.

Maybe it's just that time in the morning but I'm struggling to understand the point you're trying to make.

Why do you think Cameron finally agreed to an In/Out referendum? Because that EU vote convinced him that without it, that UKIP support just might erode enough Tory voter support to give a Labour win.

Again I'm struggling here, you seem to be saying the EU vote convinced him to hold a referendum but the EU vote came after he agreed to the referendum.

The reason Cameron (IMO) agreed to hold a referendum was because the Conservatives were loosing votes to a far-right party and one of his MPs had defected with threats of further defections, he held it purely for party political reasons, he put party politics before the country. Something that can still be seen today in how Mrs May is desperately trying to reconcile the far-right elements within her own party despite knowing full well that no matter what she does it's going to end up harming the country.

And yet, our "system" of Parliamentary elections is so loaded in favour of the yeo main parties that despite coming first in the vote, the best UKIP could do in the GE was maintain a single deserter vote from Tory to UKIP, and despite getting WAY more votes that either SDP or LibDems, wnd despite that punishing EU election, UKIP couldn't win a single new seat anywhere.

Are you seriously suggesting, in the light of the millions voting UKIP in the EU elections, and the millions voting UKIP in the GE and failing to win a single new seat, yet a clear simple majority voting Leave when asked directly, that any GE on 45 years of EEC/EU membership was a vote for EU membership?

Really? Seriously? Still?

I'm not suggesting that at all and AFAIK I've never suggested that, and to be honest i find it a little insulting that you seem to believe that i did, perhaps I've unintentional lead you to believe that, if so I'd appreciate an explanation of how.

Leaving what i hope is a misunderstanding aside, no i don't think our electoral system is fair. As much as i dislike a party such as UKIP i don't think it's right that they get millions of votes and no seats, in the same way i don't think it's fair for that to happen to any other party. However that's the system we've got, that's the system we choose to keep a few years ago in the A/V referendum, and it's the system we held up as being more democratic than the EU in the most recent referendum.

If we were living in utopia and could wave a magic wand to make our voting system better I'd probably copy the EU, and that's not because as you're probably thinking because I'm some sort of raving Europhile nut job, it's because the EU system is demonstrably more democratic and representative than the UK's.

(largely on pragmatic grounds, not tje usual little-Englander dogmatic or even xenophobic reasons I've often been accused of)

Not that i agree with those accusations but I've found things like that are often in the eye of the beholder, just like i would imagine your opinion of me is.

I'd like to think of myself as pragmatic, fair-minded, and logical, but ultimately i know I'm not the person who gets to make that judgment.

Why? Because other things are more important at a GE, especially living in a Tory/Labour marginal.

GE's aren't about ANY single issue. They're about either picking a general philosophy (be it Lab/Tory, or Green, or whatever), or about trying to pick a candidate that best reflects (however imperfectly) your particular blend of major issues, or at best, picking an individual you think (from, generally, a realistic choice of two) that best reflects your policy preferences .... or even avoiding someone or a party that doesn't. I've voted tactically a few times, suppirting a candidate I don't want because from that choice of two with any chance of winning, he/she was at least not as bad as the other.

But what I never (yet) voted on in a GE was Europe, because it has simply nevercbeen high enoughvon the agenda. And I have pretty strong views on the EU.

We gave 'permission' in genersl elections .... ih, that's rich.

IDK why, why are you asking me?

In an attempt to bring things back to referendum in general instead of one in particular: They're a bad idea and direct democracy is a bad idea. If we, in the UK and perhaps other nations, had a more democratic system that was more representative of the people there'd be far less need for plebiscite IMO.

The problem with direct democracy is that it can be bought, people with deep pockets can influence public opinion in ways that are often against their own interests or harmful to the country, it's why the UK has laws to prohibit foreign 'donations' and put in place other measures to ensure, as much as possible, free and fair elections. That's not to say politicians can't be bought, just that it's far easier to monitor if a politician has been influenced with bags of spondoolics than it is all other forms of media that contributes to public opinion.

The god awful two party system here in the UK and the one we've exported to so many nations (IMO) creates demand for plebiscite because large portions of the population go unheard and ignored.

[badass]

Oh dear another debate has been taken over by brextremists vs remaniacs