harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,431
|
Post by harrybuckle on Dec 21, 2018 17:11:26 GMT
Good to hear last night on Having a Gas that GT has spoken to DC who promised to come on the show in early 2019 to update fans on what happened during his time at BS7. DC has a time machine as well? Awesome. yes he is taking a part on Doctor Who as well
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 21, 2018 20:15:05 GMT
Of course, it just amazes me that in a country where there is a form to be filled in and copious red tape for the slightest change to anything you do that they have no way of telling if their voting is being rigged. And as you say, so easy to solve! Quite aside from their ridiculous system of actually voting of course. A lot of people vote for one candidate and their vote ends up counting towards a completely different candidate due to the system. Each to their own but I think it's twisting the whole concept of voting. www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information According to this, 72% of the electorate voted and 52% of those who voted, voted to leave. So, if the 28% who didn't vote actually wanted to stay, the remain vote would have been umm ... much higher. Conversely, if the 28% who didn't vote actually wanted to leave, the brexit vote would have ummm... much higher also. Interesting stats. It's all a load of horsew**k.....this system has existed for donkeys. 72% if true is a huge turn out, and the majority of them voted a very clear way. That's what is true. Most important. And the country should follow that mantle, much like in general election, we accept the results of that. If 28% chose not to vote, that's their democratic privilege and there's no point in speculation on how they would have voted - it's only the losing side that tries to smear the statistics to suit their own ends. They didn't vote, so can't be included. With the easiest way to register an opinion ever, they chose not to. For whatever reason. That's up to them. If we concentrate on the majority (as per democratic reason taken from a few hundred years in it's current format) decision, to not implement what was fairly decided would wreck all faith the electorate has in so say public servants of members of parliament. They are instructed by us, not the other way round. Unless anyone can come up with a better alternative, we should exit the EU as instructed on 29/03/19. If a trading deal is agreed, then so be it in interim period, but we will leave. It's law. It's binding. It was what was asked of us in June of 2016, and by all rights what should happen.
|
|
|
Post by littlestokegas on Dec 21, 2018 20:26:35 GMT
I thought that; of the people who voted, 52% said they wanted the UK to leave the EU. That is, I think true. 51.4% of the 52%who voted wanted to leave 48%did not vote Ah, so 48% of the people were not bothered one way or the other and decided to go with the majority, If I was spinning this, I could therefore say that 27% of the eligible population voted remain.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Dec 21, 2018 23:04:35 GMT
It's all a load of horsew***.....this system has existed for donkeys. 72% if true is a huge turn out, and the majority of them voted a very clear way. That's what is true. Most important. And the country should follow that mantle, much like in general election, we accept the results of that. If 28% chose not to vote, that's their democratic privilege and there's no point in speculation on how they would have voted - it's only the losing side that tries to smear the statistics to suit their own ends. They didn't vote, so can't be included. With the easiest way to register an opinion ever, they chose not to. For whatever reason. That's up to them. If we concentrate on the majority (as per democratic reason taken from a few hundred years in it's current format) decision, to not implement what was fairly decided would wreck all faith the electorate has in so say public servants of members of parliament. They are instructed by us, not the other way round. Unless anyone can come up with a better alternative, we should exit the EU as instructed on 29/03/19. If a trading deal is agreed, then so be it in interim period, but we will leave. It's law. It's binding. It was what was asked of us in June of 2016, and by all rights what should happen. The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms? We faced a choice between the known (remain) and the unknown (leave), because no-one has left the EU before except for Greenland, which is three men and a seal. It is unlikely in the extreme, that there is a leave with no deal majority in the country. That would mean 96% of the 52% of people voting remain would had to have favoured no-deal. There is virtually no binary choice question on anything at all, that would get 96% in favour of it. Unfortunately there is probably no majority for any other deal either, as we see reflected in the utter chaos in Parliament. We face the seemingly impossible position of trying to be outside the EU, while having a soft border with an EU country. A soft border which is part of the Good Friday agreement, ratified by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in separate referenda. Canada ++, Norway+ and any other suggested deal, does not seem to give a way around this problem. In the end we may finish up with Parliament saying OK, we can't come to a conclusion, here are your options, make your choice in a second vote.
|
|
|
Post by chelt_gas on Dec 22, 2018 1:24:58 GMT
It's all a load of horsew***.....this system has existed for donkeys. 72% if true is a huge turn out, and the majority of them voted a very clear way. That's what is true. Most important. And the country should follow that mantle, much like in general election, we accept the results of that. If 28% chose not to vote, that's their democratic privilege and there's no point in speculation on how they would have voted - it's only the losing side that tries to smear the statistics to suit their own ends. They didn't vote, so can't be included. With the easiest way to register an opinion ever, they chose not to. For whatever reason. That's up to them. If we concentrate on the majority (as per democratic reason taken from a few hundred years in it's current format) decision, to not implement what was fairly decided would wreck all faith the electorate has in so say public servants of members of parliament. They are instructed by us, not the other way round. Unless anyone can come up with a better alternative, we should exit the EU as instructed on 29/03/19. If a trading deal is agreed, then so be it in interim period, but we will leave. It's law. It's binding. It was what was asked of us in June of 2016, and by all rights what should happen. The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms? We faced a choice between the known (remain) and the unknown (leave), because no-one has left the EU before except for Greenland, which is three men and a seal. It is unlikely in the extreme, that there is a leave with no deal majority in the country. That would mean 96% of the 52% of people voting remain would had to have favoured no-deal. There is virtually no binary choice question on anything at all, that would get 96% in favour of it. Unfortunately there is probably no majority for any other deal either, as we see reflected in the utter chaos in Parliament. We face the seemingly impossible position of trying to be outside the EU, while having a soft border with an EU country. A soft border which is part of the Good Friday agreement, ratified by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in separate referenda. Canada ++, Norway+ and any other suggested deal, does not seem to give a way around this problem. In the end we may finish up with Parliament saying OK, we can't come to a conclusion, here are your options, make your choice in a second vote. “A good idea is a good idea forever” David Brent on Brexit. Equally many remain voters would have wanted change in our relationship with the Eu but they didn’t want to lose the privileges of the Eu or risk the uncertainty of a hard Brexit. Brexit is failed democracy and politics.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 22, 2018 5:48:51 GMT
It's all a load of horsew***.....this system has existed for donkeys. 72% if true is a huge turn out, and the majority of them voted a very clear way. That's what is true. Most important. And the country should follow that mantle, much like in general election, we accept the results of that. If 28% chose not to vote, that's their democratic privilege and there's no point in speculation on how they would have voted - it's only the losing side that tries to smear the statistics to suit their own ends. They didn't vote, so can't be included. With the easiest way to register an opinion ever, they chose not to. For whatever reason. That's up to them. If we concentrate on the majority (as per democratic reason taken from a few hundred years in it's current format) decision, to not implement what was fairly decided would wreck all faith the electorate has in so say public servants of members of parliament. They are instructed by us, not the other way round. Unless anyone can come up with a better alternative, we should exit the EU as instructed on 29/03/19. If a trading deal is agreed, then so be it in interim period, but we will leave. It's law. It's binding. It was what was asked of us in June of 2016, and by all rights what should happen. The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms? We faced a choice between the known (remain) and the unknown (leave), because no-one has left the EU before except for Greenland, which is three men and a seal. It is unlikely in the extreme, that there is a leave with no deal majority in the country. That would mean 96% of the 52% of people voting remain would had to have favoured no-deal. There is virtually no binary choice question on anything at all, that would get 96% in favour of it. Unfortunately there is probably no majority for any other deal either, as we see reflected in the utter chaos in Parliament. We face the seemingly impossible position of trying to be outside the EU, while having a soft border with an EU country. A soft border which is part of the Good Friday agreement, ratified by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in separate referenda. Canada ++, Norway+ and any other suggested deal, does not seem to give a way around this problem. In the end we may finish up with Parliament saying OK, we can't come to a conclusion, here are your options, make your choice in a second vote. "The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms?" This is a charade. The referendum was a binary choice. Remain (no one would have asked well what type of remain did you want... leading to some agreeing not agreeing with reform) or leave. We should leave. Become completely independent. Sever all ties. That's it. Simples. That's our default position, whether you like it or not. Everyone voting was told leaving the single market, customs union, CAP, CFP amongst others would be implemented. Those are facts. Deal.....nothing on the referendum ballot referred to a deal. So, we negotiate after we leave being in a stronger position. Simples...we leave, drop tariffs on imports and go to WTO. NI......nothing in the referendum ballot referred to Northern Ireland. Again, a huge charade. Neither London, Belfast, Dublin or Brussels intend to put a hard border up, so who's going to do it? Apart from anything else, no one could stop smuggling of guns and fuels anyway before the GFA. We already have an invisible border in place. This is a huge project panic initiated by everyone trying to keep us more entwined with EU.
|
|
womble
Arthur Cartlidge
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 300
|
Post by womble on Dec 22, 2018 8:03:05 GMT
The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms? We faced a choice between the known (remain) and the unknown (leave), because no-one has left the EU before except for Greenland, which is three men and a seal. It is unlikely in the extreme, that there is a leave with no deal majority in the country. That would mean 96% of the 52% of people voting remain would had to have favoured no-deal. There is virtually no binary choice question on anything at all, that would get 96% in favour of it. Unfortunately there is probably no majority for any other deal either, as we see reflected in the utter chaos in Parliament. We face the seemingly impossible position of trying to be outside the EU, while having a soft border with an EU country. A soft border which is part of the Good Friday agreement, ratified by the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic in separate referenda. Canada ++, Norway+ and any other suggested deal, does not seem to give a way around this problem. In the end we may finish up with Parliament saying OK, we can't come to a conclusion, here are your options, make your choice in a second vote. "The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms?" This is a charade. The referendum was a binary choice. Remain (no one would have asked well what type of remain did you want... leading to some agreeing not agreeing with reform) or leave. We should leave. Become completely independent. Sever all ties. That's it. Simples. That's our default position, whether you like it or not. Everyone voting was told leaving the single market, customs union, CAP, CFP amongst others would be implemented. Those are facts. Deal.....nothing on the referendum ballot referred to a deal. So, we negotiate after we leave being in a stronger position. Simples...we leave, drop tariffs on imports and go to WTO. NI......nothing in the referendum ballot referred to Northern Ireland. Again, a huge charade. Neither London, Belfast, Dublin or Brussels intend to put a hard border up, so who's going to do it? Apart from anything else, no one could stop smuggling of guns and fuels anyway before the GFA. We already have an invisible border in place. This is a huge project panic initiated by everyone trying to keep us more entwined with EU. That is of course, exactly the problem with a referendum. There will be a whole range of views that are artificially narrowed down, in this case to two options, one of which has to be vaguely defined. I would contend that the idea of us being completely independent is an illusion. We are for instance, members of NATO. Our armed forces are frequently under the overall command of someone from a different country. Everyone was told lots of things during the referendum - “£350m a week for the NHS”, “easiest negotiation ever” etc. We can pick any set of quotes and suggestions we like, to support almost any position we choose to take. None of this alters the fact that over half of British businesses are not ready. Whatever way we leave, from May’s deal to going to WTO rules, needs some sort of transition period to prepare. We are not prepared, because no-one knows what is going to happen. To go off a cliff edge in March, just because parliament can’t sort themselves out, rather than delay until they have, strikes me as economic madness.
|
|
|
Post by o2o2bo2ba on Dec 22, 2018 9:02:54 GMT
"The main problem is what do we mean by leave? Under what terms?" This is a charade. The referendum was a binary choice. Remain (no one would have asked well what type of remain did you want... leading to some agreeing not agreeing with reform) or leave. We should leave. Become completely independent. Sever all ties. That's it. Simples. That's our default position, whether you like it or not. Everyone voting was told leaving the single market, customs union, CAP, CFP amongst others would be implemented. Those are facts. Deal.....nothing on the referendum ballot referred to a deal. So, we negotiate after we leave being in a stronger position. Simples...we leave, drop tariffs on imports and go to WTO. NI......nothing in the referendum ballot referred to Northern Ireland. Again, a huge charade. Neither London, Belfast, Dublin or Brussels intend to put a hard border up, so who's going to do it? Apart from anything else, no one could stop smuggling of guns and fuels anyway before the GFA. We already have an invisible border in place. This is a huge project panic initiated by everyone trying to keep us more entwined with EU. That is of course, exactly the problem with a referendum. There will be a whole range of views that are artificially narrowed down, in this case to two options, one of which has to be vaguely defined. I would contend that the idea of us being completely independent is an illusion. We are for instance, members of NATO. Our armed forces are frequently under the overall command of someone from a different country. Everyone was told lots of things during the referendum - “£350m a week for the NHS”, “easiest negotiation ever” etc. We can pick any set of quotes and suggestions we like, to support almost any position we choose to take. None of this alters the fact that over half of British businesses are not ready. Whatever way we leave, from May’s deal to going to WTO rules, needs some sort of transition period to prepare. We are not prepared, because no-one knows what is going to happen. To go off a cliff edge in March, just because parliament can’t sort themselves out, rather than delay until they have, strikes me as economic madness. June 2016 changed our relationship with the EU forever. That's been over 2years for business to prepare. It really should be enough time Just in my small lifetime, we've seen conflict, cold war banking crisis, millennium bugs, black Monday, blue Saturday, rovers relegated; promoted twice, several changes of prime minister, introduction of minimum wage, shun the ERM, bla bla bla etc.....our businesses have adapted and flourished. They will continue to. I know a few entrepreneurs, small business owners. I'm lucky, I know a few people and my faith is 100% in clever business folk to make the most of this opportunity. We'll be ok. The referendum was much much more about economy. It's all about opinions and that's the thrust of any democratic society. You say crash out, I say mouth watering opportunity. Tomayto, tomato, we ain't calling the whole thing off.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 22, 2018 11:01:03 GMT
51.4% of the 52%who voted wanted to leave 48%did not vote Ah, so 48% of the people were not bothered one way or the other and decided to go with the majority, If I was spinning this, I could therefore say that 27% of the eligible population voted remain. Quite frankly it matters not one iota to the man in the street. The only people who will benefit are those who are filthy rich or those who caused the recession 12 years ago namely those in the financial industry. My only problem with the referendum is that it was influenced by the lies and counter lies by both sides of the argument .but there again what do you expect from politicians and their acolytes
|
|
harrybuckle
Always look on the bright side
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 5,431
|
Post by harrybuckle on Dec 22, 2018 19:01:18 GMT
Ah, so 48% of the people were not bothered one way or the other and decided to go with the majority, If I was spinning this, I could therefore say that 27% of the eligible population voted remain. Quite frankly it matters not one iota to the man in the street. The only people who will benefit are those who are filthy rich or those who caused the recession 12 years ago namely those in the financial industry. My only problem with the referendum is that it was influenced by the lies and counter lies by both sides of the argument .but there again what do you expect from politicians and their acolytes There are lies, more lies and damned statistics ...leave means leave end of
|
|