Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY!" Define democracy? You seem to be confused | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused " Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY!"  it is funny! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." Simple solutions to complex problems do not exist. Your assertion of a “Direct and clear instruction” is wrong in the same way that getting into a taxi with a vague idea where you want to go to and simply giving the driver an instruction to “drive.” | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." It really doesn’t. Was it democratic that Teressa Mays EU deal was voted down in parliament? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really. It really doesn’t. Was it democratic that Teressa Mays EU deal was voted down in parliament? " Sorry, I dont understand you. Why "doesn't it"? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really. It really doesn’t. Was it democratic that Teressa Mays EU deal was voted down in parliament? Sorry, I dont understand you. Why "doesn't it"?" Was it democratic for parliament to vote against Teresa Mays deal ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." Good you clearly illustrate you have no idea what democracy and democratic process is and the you love hate mail tag lines The one thing that democracy isn't is an absolute , majority must always steam roller its view onto a minority | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would also suggest that a vote that ended virtually 50/50 is hardly "direct and clear". " Using that argument the Welsh Assembly should not be allowed as it was 50.3% for 49.7% against result in the 1997 referendum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would also suggest that a vote that ended virtually 50/50 is hardly "direct and clear". Using that argument the Welsh Assembly should not be allowed as it was 50.3% for 49.7% against result in the 1997 referendum. " I would agree. Referendums should only be used for big issues, on rare occasions. With rules about the size of the majority required. Its how most other countries do it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." The only clear and direct instruction to the UK government that was voted on by British people in this scenario is the Good Friday Agreement. It was an agreement known before the vote, voted upon, accepted. The brexit vote contained no clear instruction, and was advisory in nature. If you are angry that brexit is not going well, you should be fucking furious that the GFA is being treated in such a way. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would also suggest that a vote that ended virtually 50/50 is hardly "direct and clear". Using that argument the Welsh Assembly should not be allowed as it was 50.3% for 49.7% against result in the 1997 referendum. " Exactly. It was not a clear majority. Under the rules of a binding referendum, the result needs to be 5% or more, there needs to be a big turn out, and there can not be one single lie told by any party. Any country can make a small majority vote binding, but that does not negate the fact it was not a clear majority vote and the result could have been ignored. It is perfectly, 100% democratic to keep the status quo unless there is a clear majority. Same with a small turn out, if there is a small turn out, then even a large majority can be ignored. In the modern age, unless we have good reason, we usually just let any vote stand. Lastly, it is also 100% democratic and proper to re-run a referendum to clarify issues that later arose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would also suggest that a vote that ended virtually 50/50 is hardly "direct and clear". " Exactly and educated social commentators should have and be illustrating this fact The cake Analogy We have a cake A vote is suggested Keep the cake Remove the eggs intact from the cake Two arguments are placed Eggs cannot be removed in any recognisable practical way and without turning most cake in the world sour Or Eggs are so easy to remove to their original state they will even produce baby chicks The vote falls 48 52 After 3 solid years of elaborate chemistry, eggs never emerge as chemically it's not plausible Learning a stupid concept is not plausible does not undermine anything democratic , | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? " But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation." I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We used to put a minimum threshold in referenda. Scotland in 1979 required 40 % of all voters to agree to devolution. A majority did, but the turn out was not high enough to hit 40 % and the idea dropped " Yes, agree. Where terms are set and those terms are not met. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We used to put a minimum threshold in referenda. Scotland in 1979 required 40 % of all voters to agree to devolution. A majority did, but the turn out was not high enough to hit 40 % and the idea dropped " Pretty much every country that uses them regularly does. It saves having to endure huge disruption unless a really significant number of the population are wanting it. That is the biggest issue here. Its actually a minority of the entire population that want this. So of course its going to be hard. If the rules of the referendum had been set up properly, we would not be in this mess. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Define democracy? You seem to be confused " No sense of humour your confused as it is to clever for you | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority?" When it's only 34%? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%?" . Yea and the way to increase voting is to ignore voters. Wonderful logic  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY!" I think you will find that the Plaid Cymru MPs are from constituencies that voted remain | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Define democracy? You seem to be confused No sense of humour your confused as it is to clever for you" Any chance you can answer the question?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%?. Yea and the way to increase voting is to ignore voters. Wonderful logic "Who is ignoring the voters?? A referendum is not the same as a general election. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 . Many people previously not engaged in political comment or opinions are spouting off theirs. We are not at war over it.
Thankfully one part of the population is not looking likely to ride roughshod over another so it looks to me as if democracy is actually alive and not dead in the UK after all. It hangs in the balance maybe but I have a sneaking suspicion that we'll come through in the end.
Perhaps there is reason to be optimistic after all if we can just get through this bump in the road. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Id love to see Plaid Cymrus reaction if the Welsh had a vote and it was 52% for indepencence but then it was revoked on the grounds they were too thick to understand what they were voting for. Same with the SNP in Scotland. Imagine it happening if there was a majority vote in NI to unite with the republic and it was ignored on the grounds that the protestant areas voted against. Yet this vote of 34m people can be thrown in the dustbin ?" 34m? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Id love to see Plaid Cymrus reaction if the Welsh had a vote and it was 52% for indepencence but then it was revoked on the grounds they were too thick to understand what they were voting for. Same with the SNP in Scotland. Imagine it happening if there was a majority vote in NI to unite with the republic and it was ignored on the grounds that the protestant areas voted against. Yet this vote of 34m people can be thrown in the dustbin ?" A referendum the result of which was based on lies, scare stories and bankrolled by self interested persons. Irrespective of that our it must been seen through or every General Election or referendum if this is not delivered will be a waste of time | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%?" Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. " But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it..." More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. " In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." That's fine as soon as the 350 million daily goes into the NHS, as soon as the deal is the easiest thing we ever do, as soon as we sign these new trade agreements the world is begging us for, as soon as the NI Agreement can be adhered to without a return to violence, as Europe sign a free trade agreement, as soon as all this is implemented then the PEEPUL can have brexit. Until then it's just a vote based on a pack of lies to THE PEEPUL. Kind regards The other People on this Island of equal countries called the UK. For now at least.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. " You're not comparing the same sort of thing. A one off, single issue vote is rather different to something that happens every four years (or less) and covers a range of issues. We have (in our current system of government) to elect MPs. We don't have to do Brexit. So having different standards for accepting the results of the two is quite reasonable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority." It was advisory | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again." Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. It was advisory "The majority advised the government they would like to leave the Eu. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. It was advisory
The majority advised the government they would like to leave the Eu."Exactly, and how are the government dealing with this advice?? Maybe they will realise it was terrible advice based on lies? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . " Is it democratic to force people to vote ??  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Remain had won by 52 to 48 do you think we would be having a debate like this 3 years later . Nope the BBC ITV Ch 4 etc wouldn’t even have been discussing it a week after the vote . Would they have given airtime or column inches to the view that the Remainers weren’t given enough information so we need to debate it ad infinitum and have a revote? Don’t think so ! I would bet you anything most remainers haven’t got the slightest clue how the EU works ,couldn’t tell me what is in the Matricht or Lisbon treaties , what the difference is between the European courts of justice and of Human rights etc etc so their vote shouldn’t count anyway as they must be even thicker and more ignorant than the Leavers. " I would bet you anything most ‘leavers’ haven’t got the slightest clue how the EU works, couldn’t tell me what is the difference between the European courts of justice and of human rights etc etc. A simple question . Are you happy with leaving the EU with a no deal?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Remain had won by 52 to 48 do you think we would be having a debate like this 3 years later . Nope the BBC ITV Ch 4 etc wouldn’t even have been discussing it a week after the vote . Would they have given airtime or column inches to the view that the Remainers weren’t given enough information so we need to debate it ad infinitum and have a revote? Don’t think so ! I would bet you anything most remainers haven’t got the slightest clue how the EU works ,couldn’t tell me what is in the Matricht or Lisbon treaties , what the difference is between the European courts of justice and of Human rights etc etc so their vote shouldn’t count anyway as they must be even thicker and more ignorant than the Leavers. " This was pretty funny. If remain won, there wouldn't have been the same uproar, for two main reasons. 1. Remaining would benefit everyone, except a select few who don't want to pay taxes or who want to play the currency markets 2. Remain campaign wasn't based on bullshit lies funded by the US and Russia. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! I think you will find that the Plaid Cymru MPs are from constituencies that voted remain" Plaid Cymru, " The Party of Wales" should therefore represent what Wales voted for, which was to leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! I think you will find that the Plaid Cymru MPs are from constituencies that voted remain Plaid Cymru, " The Party of Wales" should therefore represent what Wales voted for, which was to leave." But they aren’t, get over it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! I think you will find that the Plaid Cymru MPs are from constituencies that voted remain Plaid Cymru, " The Party of Wales" should therefore represent what Wales voted for, which was to leave." Really? They are to represent their constituents. If they voted remain then they are duty bound to reflect that view | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is no democracy anymore ..our mps prove that time and time again ...they are self self self" Do you mean the democratically elected MPs? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ?? "I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory. Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75% Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
"No thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks "Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY!" Q.) What's blue and as thick as a brick? A.) A Brexit Party supporter who thinks a "clean break brexit" means brexit is done. B.) A Tory voter who thinks a "no deal brexit" and trading on WTO is sustainable. C.) Both. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks
Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got "Good idea | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks
Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got
Good idea "Great plan. End democracy at a low point in British history and stick to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks
Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got
Good idea
Great plan. End democracy at a low point in British history and stick to it.
"End of democracy? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks
Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got
Good idea
Great plan. End democracy at a low point in British history and stick to it.
End of democracy?"Isn't that what leavers keep arguing for? No more voting, stick with the situation as of 24th June 2016. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it... More turned out for the referendum than turned out for general elections since 1992. using your argument that would mean not enough people wanted to vote for an mp at any of the previous elections therefore they don’t count as turnout was too low. Or to put it another way - more people wanted to vote during the referendum than they have for general elections - which I would say validates the result more than if the turnout had been much less than for any other election. The referendum didn’t have any thresholds - so a majority is a majority. In part, I would agree, which is why we need PR rather than FPTP, to make people's votes more relevant. The referendum didn't have thresholds, so yes the majority was a majority, in an advisory, illegally run referendum... Even with all of that, we could have left the EU months ago. However, it was leavers that stopped that happening by voting against the May deal. So at this point, I think it's fair to say we need to look at it again. Make voting mandatory. That would be my preferred option . Is it democratic to force people to vote ??
I don’t know. Let’s have a referendum and ask the electorate if voting should be mandatory.
Turnout must be 99% and the majority must be 75%
Thresholds not met, we do it again until they are
No thanks
Ok let’s stick with what we’ve got
Good idea
Great plan. End democracy at a low point in British history and stick to it.
End of democracy?
Isn't that what leavers keep arguing for?
No more voting, stick with the situation as of 24th June 2016."You’re on a different page mate | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If Remain had won by 52 to 48 do you think we would be having a debate like this 3 years later . Nope the BBC ITV Ch 4 etc wouldn’t even have been discussing it a week after the vote . Would they have given airtime or column inches to the view that the Remainers weren’t given enough information so we need to debate it ad infinitum and have a revote? Don’t think so ! I would bet you anything most remainers haven’t got the slightest clue how the EU works ,couldn’t tell me what is in the Matricht or Lisbon treaties , what the difference is between the European courts of justice and of Human rights etc etc so their vote shouldn’t count anyway as they must be even thicker and more ignorant than the Leavers. I would bet you anything most ‘leavers’ haven’t got the slightest clue how the EU works, couldn’t tell me what is the difference between the European courts of justice and of human rights etc etc. A simple question . Are you happy with leaving the EU with a no deal??" Now come on let’s be sensible here and at least agree that as long as our negotiating position about any deal that resembles a genuine Brexit has been destroyed by that 5th column of fanatical Remainer MPs in Parliament along with 3 year long-standing Remoaners and wingers like yourself there is absolutely no way the EU will offer a deal that’s acceptable so I 100% now support a no deal Brexit. Since the referendum EU have treated us like dirt on a shoe not like a friend and neighbour . To me it would now be no different to a woman remaining with a very abusive husband . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough?" Referendum vote under different rules. A clear majority is 55% with a high turnout. In such a case, the vote is an unbreakable mandate. It is as if god wrote the result on a stone tablet and the politicans carried it down from the mountain tops. However, even a majority of 1 vote out of 20 million voters can be acted upon by a government as if it was an unbreakable mandate. There is no rule saying they can not. The rules say however that if it breaks the consensus in place, then such a small majority can be ignored, or the vote can happen again. It was clearly said that the brexit result could be redone as the majority was not big enough percentage wise. However when translated to number of people, the number was 1.2 million more voted for something. Then you will understand why they decided to treat it as a clear mandate. The whole thing was done wrong, David Cameron should have asked brexit people to propose brexit plan, and to have that voted on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would also suggest that a vote that ended virtually 50/50 is hardly "direct and clear". Using that argument the Welsh Assembly should not be allowed as it was 50.3% for 49.7% against result in the 1997 referendum. I would agree. Referendums should only be used for big issues, on rare occasions. With rules about the size of the majority required. Its how most other countries do it. " What are the rules in most other countries? On turnout, vote proportion, and proportion of total electorate? Do you think the EU should have EU wide rules for EU related referendums? What do you think it should be in the UK? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation." The type of PR we were offered was complex and difficult to understand for most, and was designed to maintain the status quo as far as possible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? But these are different mechanisms to a referendum. FPTP is I agree crap, I would prefer a better means of populating our parliament, but when we were given a chance the people weren't that interested... Votes in Parliament are again different. They are representing the country. The difference of one vote, is enough, based on how it works today. If FPTP was not in place and we had better representation in the commons, I think things would work more sensibly, without governments forcing through poor legislation. I disagree. When is a majority not a majority? When it's only 34%? Without a minimum turnout being required and no minimum majority being required - 34% is still a majority. I get the 34%. You want it higher then make voting mandatory. 72% turnout is higher than any of the general elections since 1992. But that's the whole point of the argument here. It wasn't a big enough majority to justify turning the whole country on it's head. If "the majority" truly wanted this, then they would have turned out and voted for it. As it was, it was really a demonstration that there was not enough strong feeling for it..." Or was it a demonstration that there was not enough strong feelimg to remain? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really. That's fine as soon as the 350 million daily goes into the NHS, as soon as the deal is the easiest thing we ever do, as soon as we sign these new trade agreements the world is begging us for, as soon as the NI Agreement can be adhered to without a return to violence, as Europe sign a free trade agreement, as soon as all this is implemented then the PEEPUL can have brexit. Until then it's just a vote based on a pack of lies to THE PEEPUL. Kind regards The other People on this Island of equal countries called the UK. For now at least...." 350 million DAILY? Wow! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority?It is a 60/40 split." And what should the minimum turnout be? Or the minimum percentage of the electorate? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What is a clear majority? Cooper /Letwin bill squeezed through on 1 vote Constituencies have elected MPs where the majority is less than 50 votes Are these results also virtually 50/50 and not clear enough? Referendum vote under different rules. A clear majority is 55% with a high turnout. In such a case, the vote is an unbreakable mandate. It is as if god wrote the result on a stone tablet and the politicans carried it down from the mountain tops. However, even a majority of 1 vote out of 20 million voters can be acted upon by a government as if it was an unbreakable mandate. There is no rule saying they can not. The rules say however that if it breaks the consensus in place, then such a small majority can be ignored, or the vote can happen again. It was clearly said that the brexit result could be redone as the majority was not big enough percentage wise. However when translated to number of people, the number was 1.2 million more voted for something. Then you will understand why they decided to treat it as a clear mandate. The whole thing was done wrong, David Cameron should have asked brexit people to propose brexit plan, and to have that voted on." What do you mean by 'high turnout'? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s often said that nobody voted to leave without a deal ? Well maybe I’m the only one and thick ! But I voted to leave and genuinely thought that meant instantly more or less . The thought of having to do a deal to leave never even occurred to me ! Am I the only one ?" Yes | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s often said that nobody voted to leave without a deal ? Well maybe I’m the only one and thick ! But I voted to leave and genuinely thought that meant instantly more or less . The thought of having to do a deal to leave never even occurred to me ! Am I the only one ? Yes "I'm sure there are/were other people out there like this chap voting leave with no idea why, what for, how it would work or what the implications would be. I'm sure you weren't alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Q. What is orange and silly? A. A Liberal Democrat supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green and silly? A. A Green Party supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! Q. What is green/white/red and silly? A. A Plaid Cymru supporter who thinks the party believes in DEMOCRACY! I think you will find that the Plaid Cymru MPs are from constituencies that voted remain Plaid Cymru, " The Party of Wales" should therefore represent what Wales voted for, which was to leave." And shouldn't the DUP represent what Northern Ireland voted for or does that not fit in with the leave side? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"It’s often said that nobody voted to leave without a deal ? Well maybe I’m the only one and thick ! But I voted to leave and genuinely thought that meant instantly more or less . The thought of having to do a deal to leave never even occurred to me ! Am I the only one ?" “The reality is that neither the official Vote Leave campaign or any of its prominent spokespeople – including Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab – promised anything other than a deal with Europe and a continuation of free trade.” A no deal Brexit was never on the cards by any official prominent Leave campaigner. They all promised a great deal, we held all the cards etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Define democracy? You seem to be confused Perhaps it would be easier to define what is not democracy, i.e. when the people having given a direct and clear instruction for the first time in over 40 years find that their politicians, serving their own electoral ends, pervert and ignore that instruction. I think that covers it really." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
