May is nearly out and so is May

[Richard Barrett]

Possibly - maybe even probably; but people do change their minds about leaving institutions. Is the suggestion that there is no "second chance" for such people - that once they've chosen to go, they shouldn't be given the opportunity to change their minds, but should be "made" to face up to their decisions and accept the consequences?

This is the problem with referenda generally innit. Those who got the result they wanted are always going to say it's the will of the people, whereas the others are always going to say the will of the people can change - which of course it can, although much Remainer argument against the 2016 result has been based on the underhand tactics (the £350 million nonsense for example) used to secure it, whereas now we all know that Johnson, Farage and others were talking through orifices other than their mouths and the balance of opinions hasn't changed that much...

[Bryn]

Bear in mind that the NI results are yet to be determined, let alone announced. Currently, it looks like being DUP 1, SF 1, Alliance 1, but as to first preference votes, that is, as yet, a mystery.

First preferences now announced:

https://elections.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ni-european-election-2019

[Pulcinella]

First preferences now announced:

https://elections.belfasttelegraph.c...-election-2019

Which of the NI parties is pro-'Remain'?
(Lazy question: I'm sure I can find out easily enough, but someone here will probably be able to reply sooner!)

[Bryn]

Which of the NI parties is pro-'Remain'?
(Lazy question: I'm sure I can find out easily enough, but someone here will probably be able to reply sooner!)

Sinn Féin and Alliance are both remain supporting parties. In the referendum, there was a clear remain majority in the 6 counties. 55.8% to remain, against 44.2% to leave. The DUP's abuse of the term "Democratic" in their name is laid bare by their deal with the Tories. They have no respect for the democratic vote in favour of remain in NI.

Oops! Forgot to mention that the SDLP has been the most consistently pro-EU party of the lot.

[DracoM]

To which message posted here is that intended to be a response?

As an invasive force coming to take over a thinly defended land, maybe................?
Just a thought.

[french frank]

First preferences now announced:

https://elections.belfasttelegraph.c...-election-2019

And that appears to be the result, as it's tipped, with the Alliance taking a seat from the Unionists. Eastwood's votes won't go to Allister.

[Bryn]

And that appears to be the result, as it's tipped, with the Alliance taking a seat from the Unionists. Eastwood's votes won't go to Allister.

Indeed, especially as Allister will be redistributed before that could happen.

However, the DUP is likely to come out on top after all the lower preferences are distributed, with SF most likely second.

[french frank]

This is the problem with referenda generally innit.

On the other hand, there is the point of view that, although referendums should be ditched for ever as being more trouble than they're worth, another referendum is the only validway to annul a first referendum.

Personally, I suspect that might backfire, but what does seem to be the case is that turnout has increased this time in Remain (2016) areas and decreased in 'Oh, no' anNOTHer one' Leave areas. The 12m 2016 abstainers seem to have slightly mobilised - or the Remain places have a lot of new young voters.

[Dave2002]

I think ‘Mr. Foxe’ has been in these parts before....

Surprising what one can find using this -

https://images.google.com/

-->

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sidney_Fox

[french frank]

Indeed, especially as Allister will be redistributed before that could happen.

But the Unionists got a second seat last time, which the Alliance will take.

"Arriving at the count centre, DUP leader Arlene Foster said: "Of course, we would have preferred to have had two unionist MEPs returned - what we have instead is a nationalist MEP, a very strong unionist MEP and an MEP who identifies as neither."

[Dave2002]

On the other hand, there is the point of view that, although referendums should be ditched for ever as being more trouble than they're worth, another referendum is the only valid way to annul a first referendum.

What is a 'valid way' - let alone the only one to decide anything?

Majority voting works in some small environments, but deciding to base decisions only on majorities can lead to problems. It's the acceptance that rule by majority is the only way which is sometimes at fault.

Rule by majority may be acceptable if tempered by other considerations, otherwise discriminisation, criminalisation, victimisation of minorities - which indeed happens in some legislations - would be "perfectly" reasonable. It's the blind acceptance of a procedure or set of procedures as the "correct" and "only" ones which is a source of considerable aggravation - and dare one say it - bigotry.

[french frank]

What is a 'valid way' - let alone the only one to decide anything?

As I said 'there is a point of view', I didn't say it was mine. I think they mean that, in this context, if the first time winners think that the referendum indicated the 'will of the people', how could they argue that a second referendum somehow wouldn't show the will of the people? So 'valid' in the eyes of those who, in the first place, argued that referendums represent 'the will of the people', even when they are only a minority of the people.

[Bryn]

Diane Dodds (DUP) now through the quota on the 3rd count. Her surplus votes will now be redistributed.

[french frank]

Diane Dodds (DUP) now through the quota on the 3rd count. Her surplus votes will now be redistributed.

If it's the third count, does it mean there won't be that many surplus votes to distribute? I've mastered D'Hondt but forgotten STV.

[Serial_Apologist]

As I said 'there is a point of view', I didn't say it was mine. I think they mean that, in this context, if the first time winners think that the referendum indicated the 'will of the people', how could they argue that a second referendum somehow wouldn't show the will of the people? So 'valid' in the eyes of those who, in the first place, argued that referendums represent 'the will of the people', even when they are only a minority of the people.

Well by defintion then, those that didn't vote, or voted against "the will of the people", have automatically forfeited their right to be included in "the people", even though they didn't have any say in whether or not the would be, before voting. I can't see any other way to interpret it. Perhaps "the people" shoud have been consulted as to whether those voting one way, which would eventually be the losing side, or not voting at all, should thereafter be excluded.

Sartre defined social group self-definition, ie we all agree that we agree that we are in this group - as defined by those we define as being outside our group - as a form of "bad faith", or "mauvais foi", since the group can only exist and maintain intself in relation to an externality, namely those not in or part of it, whose existence is a perpetual threat. The threat possibility is all-important, and it is usually based on fantasy or falsehood because it is being drummed up to sow division. A divided society cannot unite to protect itself against genuine danger, which must be kept hidden in the interests of those who define the falsehood. Those people, the primary definers, are the authority figures whose power has to be "internalised", ie become part of the individual consciousness, and then acknowledged one way or another, be it merely by a glance or an aside. This is the opposite of "good faith", in which group cohesion arrives at its own self-definition, and is not "dependent" on others and their potential threat to our carefully (or maybe not so carefully) cultivated exclusivity. In the case of humans, since it is dependent on agreeing to defiintions imposed by authority figures (parents, teachers, preachers, police and politicians (less so nowadays), fetishised icons like military figures and sportspeople, it is probably the origin of scapegoating.