onevalefan.co.uk Present Past Specials About Forum
Jump to content
onevalefan.co.uk forum

Advert


Advert


Brexit again...


Davebrad

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, geosname said:

You won't get any argument from me about politicians lying mate.

The problem with a threshold referendum is 2 fold.

1...  what's the default position if the threshold isn't reached?

I suspect pre 1st referendum which totally disregards the vote.... I can't see brexit voters sitting still for that.

2... if the threshold is reached there will be a call to have a 3rd....... by brexiteers if they lose..... and claims the threshold was to low if remainers lose.

So we go around again and again.

The only way I can see out of the mess.... is to create a bigger, if temporary, mess.

Honour the first referendum..... then call a second referendum  right after.

To much would depend on the EUs cooperation in giving us our existing seat at the table back.

The default position in a vote with a threshold is for the status quo . Agreement on say  60% of the vote, or a simple majority of the electorate. is reasonably high, more conclusive and  difficult to argue against. Just compare to what other countries  do  and dispel this laughing stock of the world democratic image  we have now. Whether it happens before or after we leave does not matter to me , I am convinced a 60% threshold would  be met to come back in, even under less favourable terms. The same seat at the table but like everybody else without our customary cushions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Advert

51 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

The default position in a vote with a threshold is for the status quo . Agreement on say  60% of the vote, or a simple majority of the electorate. is reasonably high, more conclusive and  difficult to argue against. Just compare to what other countries  do  and dispel this laughing stock of the world democratic image  we have now. Whether it happens before or after we leave does not matter to me , I am convinced a 60% threshold would  be met to come back in, even under less favourable terms. The same seat at the table but like everybody else without our customary cushions.

I would suggest it would have to be after we left..... and I don't think 60% is high enough to stop arguments and accusations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, geosname said:

I would suggest it would have to be after we left..... and I don't think 60% is high enough to stop arguments and accusations. 

Probably 66%  would be better as a 60% vote on a 80% turnout would only be 48% not a majority of the electorate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guardian reporting porkies again?

As House of Commons briefing paper 07212 sets out in respect of the 2016 referendum: it was “consultative”. It continues: “The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented.”

 

Does this mean we can never have a mandate directly from the people?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Guardian reporting porkies again?

As House of Commons briefing paper 07212 sets out in respect of the 2016 referendum: it was “consultative”. It continues: “The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented.”

 

Does this mean we can never have a mandate directly from the people?

I am coming round more and more to the fact that a leave vote would never have been accepted.

"They" never thought that the public would win a majority hence the shenanigans Gina Miller Theresa May et al to stymie the result. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

Guardian reporting porkies again?

As House of Commons briefing paper 07212 sets out in respect of the 2016 referendum: it was “consultative”. It continues: “The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented.”

 

Does this mean we can never have a mandate directly from the people?

To be honest mate I think if parliament wanted to do something I doubt anyone or anything could stop them.

As judge Lord Cooper stated some time ago "it's not a question of what parliament can or can't do, it's a question of who can stop them"

The only thing with the power to stop them are the people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mario said:

I am coming round more and more to the fact that a leave vote would never have been accepted.

"They" never thought that the public would win a majority hence the shenanigans Gina Miller Theresa May et al to stymie the result. 

The public were lied to by the Leave side so the public deserves the right to be consulted again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Mario said:

I can understand that view....BUT what happens if theres another vote and it's leave again ?

Jo Swinson has already admitted that she would not change her position even after a second vote to leave. At least she is somewhat honest.

If they don't respect the first vote then they will not respect the second, third or fourth.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Mario said:

NHS money for a start............

If it's the amount of money on the bus, then according to the EU 2015 budget (confirming how much of our money is controlled via the EU) shows that the amount was accurate and possibly even could have been higher.

If you are saying it is a lie to say "lets fund our NHS instead {of the EU}" then I don't agree either. It was a campaign and suggesting better things to spend our money on than a failing political union was more than fair game. Lets not forget that none of the people responsible for that bus slogan, at the time, had the power or authority to deliver. There was no official manifesto. It was a vote to leave the EU. Subsequent GE's are where manifesto's should then decide on our domestic policies.

If you are saying it is a lie to not specify whether the amount of money was a net or gross figure then it's clutching at straws a bit. The courts dismissed that one in their judgement of the frivolous proceedings against Boris.

 

Many remainers are desperate to paint it as a lie but their claim doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Reporting Posts and other information

    Rules - This forum is moderated but the admin team don't read everything. Don't assume we'll spot rule breaking and alert us by reporting content. Logged in users can hover over the post and click the orange button. Guests can contact us here. If you don't get on with another user you can "ignore" them. Click this link, type in their username and click save. Please check with the admin team if you wish to sell/auction any items. We're happy to support good causes but check first.

    Use - This forum may not be suitable for all as it may contain words or phrases not considered appropriate for some. You are personally responsible and potentially liable for the contents of your posting and could face legal action should it contain content of a defamatory or other illegal nature. Every message posted leaves a traceable IP number. Please do not reveal any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example: phone number, address or email address). This forum is not in any way affiliated with Port Vale FC. OVF reserve the right to edit, delete, move or close any thread for any reason. If you spot an offensive post please report it to the admin team (instructions are above).

    Adverts - This site occasionally a) has adverts and sponsored features about gambling b) accepts sponsored posts from third parties. If you require help and advice on gambling read these links: Information on protecting young people | Addiction help from gambleaware.co.uk
  • Friends of OVF


Advert



×
×
  • Create New...