Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Whats Your Thoughts On This.....
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 1rovert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Load of old pony
1) it's not difficult to leave the EU
2) No PM will survive ignoring the democratic will of the people even if it is technically not binding.
order up another container ship of sour grapes while we go around this loop again eh.!
Why can't the remainiacs just accept they lost and stop whining like a jumbo jet?
1) it's not difficult to leave the EU
2) No PM will survive ignoring the democratic will of the people even if it is technically not binding.
order up another container ship of sour grapes while we go around this loop again eh.!
Why can't the remainiacs just accept they lost and stop whining like a jumbo jet?
we should have jim, cancel the DD, bye bye, all the rest is irrelevant, cometh the hour cometh the deal on whatever. All this tosh about extracting ourselves is cobblers. As for all this "didn't mean it" - "didn't understand it" - "voting system needs amending" - yada yada would anyone be having those discussions if we'd voted to stay? Nope!
Since I've been banging on about changing voting systems for ages... yes, I would have still discussed it. Can't answer for anyone else.
Besides which, wasn't this the point of the Brexit vote anyway? A chance to change how our country is run, and now that we're going to leave the EU and return apparently total control to Westminster, isn't it also the best opportunity to question how that part of our democracy works?
Besides which, wasn't this the point of the Brexit vote anyway? A chance to change how our country is run, and now that we're going to leave the EU and return apparently total control to Westminster, isn't it also the best opportunity to question how that part of our democracy works?
Well I know you'd think that way, although then again every non-FPTP voting system in your book is apparently Proportional Representation (a statement that is factually wrong), so I still think there's plenty of room for a discussion with more basis in how alternative systems actually work.
And besides, even if we don't change the way we vote, we can change when we vote, or how often; or add in the House of Lords too; or we could have a less gerrymandered set of boundaries; perhaps there is more of a case for introducing an English parliament and expanding the role of the Scottish/ Irish and particularly Welsh equivalents; we could change who gets to vote in elections (expanding the franchise to age 16?); make voting compulsory; ...
And besides, even if we don't change the way we vote, we can change when we vote, or how often; or add in the House of Lords too; or we could have a less gerrymandered set of boundaries; perhaps there is more of a case for introducing an English parliament and expanding the role of the Scottish/ Irish and particularly Welsh equivalents; we could change who gets to vote in elections (expanding the franchise to age 16?); make voting compulsory; ...
"Since I've been banging on about changing voting systems for ages... yes, I would have still discussed it. Can't answer for anyone else." - yes but this is a simple 2 choice pure PR vote, what could possibly "improve it"?
"Besides which, wasn't this the point of the Brexit vote anyway? A chance to change how our country is run, and now that we're going to leave the EU and return apparently total control to Westminster, isn't it also the best opportunity to question how that part of our democracy works? "
nothing to question 2 choices A or B one of them had the most votes, cannot get any simpler, nothing to discuss.
"Besides which, wasn't this the point of the Brexit vote anyway? A chance to change how our country is run, and now that we're going to leave the EU and return apparently total control to Westminster, isn't it also the best opportunity to question how that part of our democracy works? "
nothing to question 2 choices A or B one of them had the most votes, cannot get any simpler, nothing to discuss.
“if people have changed their minds, why would their opinion count for less now than it did in June?“
Because nothing much has changed (as far as the question of UK’s EU membership goes) to justify asking the question again.
“They are at the very least a lot better informed now.”
How so? They were fed a load of exaggerations, half-truths and lies (by both sides) prior to June 23rd and have been fed similar garbage since. The things that have been measured since then largely show little or no change (as would be expected), with the exception of the Pound’s devaluation (which was necessary anyway, regardless of the vote). Many things forecast under “Project Fear” (emergency budget, tax rises, collapse of inward investment, stock market crash, financial instability, large companies upping sticks) have not, thusfar, reared their head (as also would be expected). I’m not saying they will not, but they haven’t so far – certainly not sufficiently to cause people to regret voting to leave and certainly not enough to make them “better informed”.
“…maybe a 55-60% vote required to overturn the status quo, on the basis that the status quo also had public opinion behind it.”
Two things wrong with that, jno: (1) Why assume that the status quo has public support? And (2) remaining in the EU does not involve a “status quo”. The EU has changed beyond recognition in the last 40 years (one of the main reasons many people called for a referendum - they were reasonably happy with the EEC but not with the EU) and will change further beyond recognition in the next 20.
Because nothing much has changed (as far as the question of UK’s EU membership goes) to justify asking the question again.
“They are at the very least a lot better informed now.”
How so? They were fed a load of exaggerations, half-truths and lies (by both sides) prior to June 23rd and have been fed similar garbage since. The things that have been measured since then largely show little or no change (as would be expected), with the exception of the Pound’s devaluation (which was necessary anyway, regardless of the vote). Many things forecast under “Project Fear” (emergency budget, tax rises, collapse of inward investment, stock market crash, financial instability, large companies upping sticks) have not, thusfar, reared their head (as also would be expected). I’m not saying they will not, but they haven’t so far – certainly not sufficiently to cause people to regret voting to leave and certainly not enough to make them “better informed”.
“…maybe a 55-60% vote required to overturn the status quo, on the basis that the status quo also had public opinion behind it.”
Two things wrong with that, jno: (1) Why assume that the status quo has public support? And (2) remaining in the EU does not involve a “status quo”. The EU has changed beyond recognition in the last 40 years (one of the main reasons many people called for a referendum - they were reasonably happy with the EEC but not with the EU) and will change further beyond recognition in the next 20.
Thanks TTT for your missing-the-point analysis -- I was referring to elections in general, not just referenda. But you knew that already, I'm sure.
NJ -- with respect to your last point, insisting that the "status quo" is never an option is somewhat misleading. It's obvious that the structure of the EU was going to change come what may, but voting to stay in it was accepting a continuation of the current direction it was heading and not just the state it was in *now*. So yes, a vote to remain in the EU absolutely was a vote for the status quo, while leaving would change direction altogether. It is quite typical for the change in direction position in most other countries that hold referenda to require a greater margin of victory than 50%+1.
NJ -- with respect to your last point, insisting that the "status quo" is never an option is somewhat misleading. It's obvious that the structure of the EU was going to change come what may, but voting to stay in it was accepting a continuation of the current direction it was heading and not just the state it was in *now*. So yes, a vote to remain in the EU absolutely was a vote for the status quo, while leaving would change direction altogether. It is quite typical for the change in direction position in most other countries that hold referenda to require a greater margin of victory than 50%+1.
Type Your Answer Here...Yes I accept your argument that to remain would be to accept a continuing membership of a changing organisation, Jim. But somehow the idea that this somehow retains the “status quo” is a bit off the mark.
As soon as the term “status quo” is introduced (the existing condition; the way things are now) it conjures up a stable, unchanging situation. This is certainly not the case with the EU. I was particularly amused when the choice in the referendum was portrayed as “A leap in the dark” (Leave) or the “status quo” (Remain). In my view it would be a far greater leap in the dark to remain as nobody has much idea how the EU will morph over the coming years and much of that change would be completely beyond the control of the UK Parliament.
As soon as the term “status quo” is introduced (the existing condition; the way things are now) it conjures up a stable, unchanging situation. This is certainly not the case with the EU. I was particularly amused when the choice in the referendum was portrayed as “A leap in the dark” (Leave) or the “status quo” (Remain). In my view it would be a far greater leap in the dark to remain as nobody has much idea how the EU will morph over the coming years and much of that change would be completely beyond the control of the UK Parliament.
