Jump to content
Davebrad

Brexit again...

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

It is called sovereignty, or would you prefer a dictatorship?

I'd much prefer them to own up and tell us what they really want but of course they won't.

PS - I think the public already know.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, geosname said:

I answered a specific question about Labour supporters.

No one asked about Tories, lib dems, SNP,  brexit, greens.

If you want to ask........

Someone's trying to shut you down geo?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

Are France and Germany less democratic? They certainly have fully  elected parliaments, and none of this knocking on door ceremonies.

Knocking on door ceremonies brings the tourists and their money in...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Fosse69 said:

It is called sovereignty, or would you prefer a dictatorship?

I've been watching parliament on tele this pm, some good arguments from a few sides ie Benn he would make a good party leader, dup man Jim Shannon, and IDS, in which IDS made a very good point "parliament is sovereign, and on 23rd June 2016, we handed that sovereignty back to the people for them to make their choice"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

I've been watching parliament on tele this pm, some good arguments from a few sides ie Benn he would make a good party leader, dup man Jim Shannon, and IDS, in which IDS made a very good point "parliament is sovereign, and on 23rd June 2016, we handed that sovereignty back to the people for them to make their choice"

IDS clueless as ever

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth Smeeth and Gareth Snell clearly putting their own career first before country and constituents lives. At least my MP Paul Farrrelly isn't voting with the tories. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, colin said:

Ruth Smeeth and Gareth Snell clearly putting their own career first before country and constituents lives. At least my MP Paul Farrrelly isn't voting with the tories. 

he's got bugger all to lose, with a 30 majority he's not standing again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, For Us All said:

This lot to resign like Cameron.

 

Loooooool 

One of three things is happening here. Either the man without the backbone to have his own opinion is angry at politicians for doing something he doesn’t know if he supports or not. 

or a man who doesn’t support the deal is angry that politicians also don’t support the deal, and is calling them hypocrites while hypocritically criticising them. 

Or leave voter doesn’t know what he voted for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or a leave voter has the temerity to expect MPs who promised us we would leave the EU to stop frustrating it.

Or a leave voter simply knows a liar when he sees one, and those MPs that stood under a labour manifesto are the worst of the lot.

 

Andy, we knew what we voted for - to leave the EU.

Just because you pretend you don't know what we voted for doesn't mean that the result should be voided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The villain of the more than 3 years of wasted parliamentary time, the Danes do it better.

Courtesy of the Indy

Turning to the UK’s EU referendum, it assumed a binary choice between leaving and remaining in the EU, when the reality is far more complex. There were also no minimum safeguards in place for such a major constitutional shift. Those who voted leave were 37 per cent of the electorate. Remain voters were 36 per cent. The rest didn’t vote. Not even the minimum threshold of 40 per cent of the electorate was crossed, let alone the idea of super majorities for constitutional change.

Under the Danish system, the 2016 referendum would have to have been ignored. That was the case with the first Scottish devolution referendum in the 1970s. The 40 per cent threshold was not crossed, which parliament had required. The poll therefore was void. The naivety of David Cameron in applying the first past the post principle to the referendum is the root of the current crisis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

The villain of the more than 3 years of wasted parliamentary time, the Danes do it better.

Courtesy of the Indy

Turning to the UK’s EU referendum, it assumed a binary choice between leaving and remaining in the EU, when the reality is far more complex. There were also no minimum safeguards in place for such a major constitutional shift. Those who voted leave were 37 per cent of the electorate. Remain voters were 36 per cent. The rest didn’t vote. Not even the minimum threshold of 40 per cent of the electorate was crossed, let alone the idea of super majorities for constitutional change.

Under the Danish system, the 2016 referendum would have to have been ignored. That was the case with the first Scottish devolution referendum in the 1970s. The 40 per cent threshold was not crossed, which parliament had required. The poll therefore was void. The naivety of David Cameron in applying the first past the post principle to the referendum is the root of the current crisis.

its not our fault he called a referendum, with parliaments permission, and we answered what he and they collectively decided to ask us...spured on by the promise that the result would be honoured.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European Union Referendum Bill easily passed during a vote in the Commons last night by 544 to 53, with support from Labour MPs giving the motion a majority of 491.

acting Labour leader Harriet Harman committed her party to supporting plans for an EU referendum by 2017

 

the above is the result of a parliamentary vote on whether to hold a referendum.

Tories had a majority at the time but I doubt it was 491.

to blame Cameron for the referendum is like the referendum question..... far to simplistic.... 544 elected members wanted it..... 650 elected members don't know what to do with it... surely if you don't want to leave you don't vote for the mechanism that enables it.

498 voted to enact article 50...... surely if you don't want to leave with no deal you don't vote for the mechanism that enables it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, colin said:

Ruth Smeeth and Gareth Snell clearly putting their own career first before country and constituents lives. At least my MP Paul Farrrelly isn't voting with the tories. 

The poor buggers can't win.  They are wrong if they vote against May's Withdrawal Bill but wrong if the vote for the current one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, colin said:

Ruth Smeeth and Gareth Snell clearly putting their own career first before country and constituents lives. At least my MP Paul Farrrelly isn't voting with the tories. 

They are both first class constituency MPs, who want Brexit settled, I applaud their courage and conviction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Davebrad said:

its not our fault he called a referendum, with parliaments permission, and we answered what he and they collectively decided to ask us...spured on by the promise that the result would be honoured.

I didn't say it was, the article explained reasons why everything has not flowed smoothly, in their opinion the vote would not have been large  enough to be considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, geosname said:

The European Union Referendum Bill easily passed during a vote in the Commons last night by 544 to 53, with support from Labour MPs giving the motion a majority of 491.

acting Labour leader Harriet Harman committed her party to supporting plans for an EU referendum by 2017

 

the above is the result of a parliamentary vote on whether to hold a referendum.

Tories had a majority at the time but I doubt it was 491.

to blame Cameron for the referendum is like the referendum question..... far to simplistic.... 544 elected members wanted it..... 650 elected members don't know what to do with it... surely if you don't want to leave you don't vote for the mechanism that enables it.

498 voted to enact article 50...... surely if you don't want to leave with no deal you don't vote for the mechanism that enables it. 

The Referendum Bill passed by a Parliamentary majority of 491 was for a advisory vote, how many had bothered to read the paper work I do not know. 

Cameron decided to hold a referendum against the advice of Osbourne, and as PM fell by his sword when it did not go as he expected. He gave the impression that the result would be followed despite the nature of the referendum and without the safeguard of a threshold, completely to blame for the shambles that has followed.

As for Article 50, it is the exit process that can have any result from cliff edge to scrapping the exit, I assume the cliff-edge was put in to stop time wasters, but seen as an opportunity to crash out direct to WTO. It gives the chance to view deals available and demonstrate to the electorate what Brexit means, parliament or the electorate can then decide what to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/10/2019 at 22:08, Nofinikea said:

Seriously?  If you cant understand how it stacks the odds in favour of leave you genuinely are simple.  A 10 year old can understand how putting aminimun turnout and a 60% threshold in place means it's in favour of leave.

Let's try another way.  17M voted to leave, to overturn that with a new referendum I hypothetically suggested that 27M would have to vote remain, that's 10M more, that's quite alot.  That means Remain could win by say 9M votes, again which is alot more than leave won by, but because it's short of the 60% the original result would stand.  Ergo, the odds favour leave...

In other news Bill doesnt understand percentages.

I understand percentages very well thank you.  However you clearly don't understand that my main point of argument is that you can't just 'change the rules'. Nobody but you (certainly not anyone with any clarity of purpose & logic) has, to my knowledge suggested anything other than a straight majority as it was for the original, so percentages don't even come into it. As long as one side polls one more vote than the other, then under the original and surely in any subsequent referendum, that majority prevails?

Let's try another simpler hypothesis for you; as many remainers have been all too willing to point out, the original 'older vote' will have gone down statistically by around 2m since 2016 and approx the same number of new younger eligible voters have come onto the electoral register (assuming they've bothered to register, which is, I accept far from a given).  But all things being equal, I supect that any re-run vote would end up not much different than the original, so your 27m leave votes is a complete fantasy--only around 34m in total voted in the first referendum!I suggest you forget your percentages, check reality or maybe go back to using an abacus.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy