The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
A third said one thing, a third said another then the other third did not have a preference. Just because there were only two choices on the ballot doesn't mean there were only two options in reality since there were actually 3 across the electorate. It's just to vote for third option, you didn't have to do anything.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
"Leave the EU" got a plurality. Not a majority. It's a small, but important distinction.
So don't call just the people who voted 'the British people' when they only form about half of the people.
And 'kinda how democracy works' is why we have elected representatives who are there to represent the interests of those who cannot or did not vote. Just because we restrict the vote to people based on age, health and nationality does not mean those people who cannot vote have every right to have their interests considered in a healthy democracy.
Brexiters will kick and scream about the will of the people until they're blue in the face but it doesn't change the fact it's total bollocks, and when it seems to be the only reason why we are even considering leaving the EU, since every other argument in favour of leaving has been well and truly abandoned by Brexiters far and wide, it really does underline what an error we are making.
It is a misleading term I agree. It’s what the majority of those who bothered to vote wanted, so we must accept that, but will of the people doesn’t make sense to me.
The term majority is also misleading because the result was more or less a dead heat with the percentage difference being trivial. It is the equivalent of asking an office of 100 of where they want their work outing to be, 48 say football match, 52 say Disney on Ice then forcing then other 48 to go along with it instead of considering that in the end whatever happens more or less half of those who voted are going to be extremely unhappy. The problem is our inept and lazy politicians couldn't figure out that the basic issue is the country is divided and simply decided to widen those divisions further by basically saying half the voters are not entitled to democratic representation. They should have considered the result for what it represented rather than as a black and white result and gone back to the drawing board for a better way forward. In the words of Nigel Farage, a 52-48 would mean unfinished business.
I really don't fancy Disney on Ice. Think I'll just call in sick and have a duvet day.
As for the Disney mob they can't agree amongst themselves what day they want to go, where they want to sit or how they want to get there. It's a car crash of a day out, and they're bound to blame me for it all going wrong when none of them really have a clue how to make this farcical outing work.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Because the aim was never to actually find out the views of the public on leaving the EU. The majority of Tory MP's know that leaving is going to be a disaster rumbling on for decades. It was only ever designed to shut up the minority of noisy right wingers within the Tory party and primarily to prop up the party by tempting back some of those voters drifting towards UKIP.
The Tory's didn't want to offer another "poll" as this wouldn't have cut it with the above groups nor the eurosceptic press. A "Yes" poll would only ramp up the pressure to leave, a "No" would only have kicked it down the road a bit. Cameron gambled with an "all in" strategy, the Tories and the dinosaur deniers have now painted themselves into a corner and here we are...
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
You keep using the term "couldn't be bothered". That is massively insulting to every under 18 who wasn't allowed to vote, every person home-bound who couldn't get out to vote, every EU national who's lived in the UK for years and was desperate to vote.
And for those who genuinely couldn't be bothered, then there is far more arguement that they wanted to remain (i.e. they didn't want to leave badly enough to get out and vote, therefore not that upset with the status quo) than the leave campaign trying to claim them not voting gives a bigger mandate for leave.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
"....while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict."
Quite correct, but mainly because the EU regards Brexit as blasphemy against the religion that is the EU and for them it is a holy war.
If it was not able to be characterised as a religious conflict, Brexit would mean Brexit and an adult discussion would proceed to establish the trade arrangements post Brexit position as the first stage. Why has that not happened - because the EU said it wouldn't.
Agreeing from the outset that the mutual objective was a clean break and a trade agreement which ensured optimal economic outcomes would have meant end of the Brexit debate. It could have been on any modified existing model. The debate would have started by agreeing the outcome, a debate the EU flatly insisted would not take place.
Believers in the EU as a crux that the UK economy depends upon for its very existence will never accept withdrawal from the EU as being an acceptable democratic decision. To then focus on the potential negative effect on the economy because of the EU having to protect its religion, and blame UK voters for being non-believers, is perverse.
It is convenient for EU supporters to ascribe the inability to negotiate an optimal economic outcome as the fault of the government yet don't have the integrity to admit that outcome is the EU's objective, or if they do, it should not be criticised.
If the reality of the EU's position is accepted it gives substance to the argument for facing down the EU given the difference between a sub-optimal and least optimal outcome is marginal. The government is proceeding at the moment in the hope that the EU is bluffing and an optimal outcome for both the EU and the UK can be achieved.
The UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it. Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
So yes I entirely agree the UK is looking like a buffoon trying to convert religious fanatics to a secular outlook. The UK allows all religious beliefs to be worshipped, it just stopped allowing religion to lay down laws many year ago.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
You keep using the term "couldn't be bothered". That is massively insulting to every under 18 who wasn't allowed to vote, every person home-bound who couldn't get out to vote, every EU national who's lived in the UK for years and was desperate to vote.
And for those who genuinely couldn't be bothered, then there is far more arguement that they wanted to remain (i.e. they didn't want to leave badly enough to get out and vote, therefore not that upset with the status quo) than the leave campaign trying to claim them not voting gives a bigger mandate for leave.
Theres postal votes. Theres proxy voting. And where did you drag the fact that those that couldn't be arsed were remainers. Sounds like as a remainer, its you trying to gain the higher ground. In reality i suspect it was 52/48 or wait 37/33. And for the record i have 2 twenty odd year olds, they couldnt be bothered. So in the chippy house referendum... That's 100/0.
"....while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict."
Quite correct, but mainly because the EU regards Brexit as blasphemy against the religion that is the EU and for them it is a holy war.
If it was not able to be characterised as a religious conflict, Brexit would mean Brexit and an adult discussion would proceed to establish the trade arrangements post Brexit position as the first stage. Why has that not happened - because the EU said it wouldn't.
Agreeing from the outset that the mutual objective was a clean break and a trade agreement which ensured optimal economic outcomes would have meant end of the Brexit debate. It could have been on any modified existing model. The debate would have started by agreeing the outcome, a debate the EU flatly insisted would not take place.
Believers in the EU as a crux that the UK economy depends upon for its very existence will never accept withdrawal from the EU as being an acceptable democratic decision. To then focus on the potential negative effect on the economy because of the EU having to protect its religion, and blame UK voters for being non-believers, is perverse.
It is convenient for EU supporters to ascribe the inability to negotiate an optimal economic outcome as the fault of the government yet don't have the integrity to admit that outcome is the EU's objective, or if they do, it should not be criticised.
If the reality of the EU's position is accepted it gives substance to the argument for facing down the EU given the difference between a sub-optimal and least optimal outcome is marginal. The government is proceeding at the moment in the hope that the EU is bluffing and an optimal outcome for both the EU and the UK can be achieved.
The UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it. Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
So yes I entirely agree the UK is looking like a buffoon trying to convert religious fanatics to a secular outlook. The UK allows all religious beliefs to be worshipped, it just stopped allowing religion to lay down laws many year ago.
Having our cake and eating it was never, ever a viable outcome.
The option is of course a hard brexit, supported by some on this thread. You give the cake back and either starve or bake a new one. The suggested ingredients of the new one are as follows:
- a hint of hope - a soupcon of a wing and a prayer - a great big dollop of being the 51st State of America - a tablespoon full of Chinese dumping ground - a smidgen of off-shore tax haven for multinationals - a sliver of dream of taking back control
All prepared, baked and distributed by the internationally renowned purveyors of patisserie, the House of Rees-Mogg, Johnson & Gove
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
"....while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict."
Quite correct, but mainly because the EU regards Brexit as blasphemy against the religion that is the EU and for them it is a holy war.
If it was not able to be characterised as a religious conflict, Brexit would mean Brexit and an adult discussion would proceed to establish the trade arrangements post Brexit position as the first stage. Why has that not happened - because the EU said it wouldn't.
Agreeing from the outset that the mutual objective was a clean break and a trade agreement which ensured optimal economic outcomes would have meant end of the Brexit debate. It could have been on any modified existing model. The debate would have started by agreeing the outcome, a debate the EU flatly insisted would not take place.
Believers in the EU as a crux that the UK economy depends upon for its very existence will never accept withdrawal from the EU as being an acceptable democratic decision. To then focus on the potential negative effect on the economy because of the EU having to protect its religion, and blame UK voters for being non-believers, is perverse.
It is convenient for EU supporters to ascribe the inability to negotiate an optimal economic outcome as the fault of the government yet don't have the integrity to admit that outcome is the EU's objective, or if they do, it should not be criticised.
If the reality of the EU's position is accepted it gives substance to the argument for facing down the EU given the difference between a sub-optimal and least optimal outcome is marginal. The government is proceeding at the moment in the hope that the EU is bluffing and an optimal outcome for both the EU and the UK can be achieved.
The UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it. Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
So yes I entirely agree the UK is looking like a buffoon trying to convert religious fanatics to a secular outlook. The UK allows all religious beliefs to be worshipped, it just stopped allowing religion to lay down laws many year ago.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
Well lots of people who knew they didn't know enough to form an opinion voted, hence " what is the EU" was the most Googled term in the UK the day AFTER the referendum
Well lots of people who knew they didn't know enough to form an opinion voted, hence " what is the EU" was the most Googled term in the UK the day AFTER the referendum
Sure... They were all brexiters... Theres mountains/swathes of evidence to support this.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
I’m not sure if you’ve noticed just how complex this Brexit thingy is. The Minister charged with delivering Brexit has time and time again showed that he doesn’t understand the issues.
Forming an opinion on an issue that comes down as either yes or no is not always as simple as you seem to think. On this particular question I’ll go as far as saying that not one single person was qualified to decide.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
Well lots of people who knew they didn't know enough to form an opinion voted, hence " what is the EU" was the most Googled term in the UK the day AFTER the referendum
Sure... They were all brexiters... Theres mountains/swathes of evidence to support this.
Never claimed they were, just said lots of people voted knowing they weren't informed enough to form an opinion. It was you who assumed they all voted brexit, telling.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
Well he certainly is now you’ve piped up.
Shooters remember the handshake....
Nescafé ? ;0)
Mmm you suprise me... Thought you had more honour.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Comments
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
As for the Disney mob they can't agree amongst themselves what day they want to go, where they want to sit or how they want to get there. It's a car crash of a day out, and they're bound to blame me for it all going wrong when none of them really have a clue how to make this farcical outing work.
The Tory's didn't want to offer another "poll" as this wouldn't have cut it with the above groups nor the eurosceptic press. A "Yes" poll would only ramp up the pressure to leave, a "No" would only have kicked it down the road a bit. Cameron gambled with an "all in" strategy, the Tories and the dinosaur deniers have now painted themselves into a corner and here we are...
And for those who genuinely couldn't be bothered, then there is far more arguement that they wanted to remain (i.e. they didn't want to leave badly enough to get out and vote, therefore not that upset with the status quo) than the leave campaign trying to claim them not voting gives a bigger mandate for leave.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
"....while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict."
Quite correct, but mainly because the EU regards Brexit as blasphemy against the religion that is the EU and for them it is a holy war.
If it was not able to be characterised as a religious conflict, Brexit would mean Brexit and an adult discussion would proceed to establish the trade arrangements post Brexit position as the first stage. Why has that not happened - because the EU said it wouldn't.
Agreeing from the outset that the mutual objective was a clean break and a trade agreement which ensured optimal economic outcomes would have meant end of the Brexit debate. It could have been on any modified existing model. The debate would have started by agreeing the outcome, a debate the EU flatly insisted would not take place.
Believers in the EU as a crux that the UK economy depends upon for its very existence will never accept withdrawal from the EU as being an acceptable democratic decision. To then focus on the potential negative effect on the economy because of the EU having to protect its religion, and blame UK voters for being non-believers, is perverse.
It is convenient for EU supporters to ascribe the inability to negotiate an optimal economic outcome as the fault of the government yet don't have the integrity to admit that outcome is the EU's objective, or if they do, it should not be criticised.
If the reality of the EU's position is accepted it gives substance to the argument for facing down the EU given the difference between a sub-optimal and least optimal outcome is marginal. The government is proceeding at the moment in the hope that the EU is bluffing and an optimal outcome for both the EU and the UK can be achieved.
The UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it. Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
So yes I entirely agree the UK is looking like a buffoon trying to convert religious fanatics to a secular outlook. The UK allows all religious beliefs to be worshipped, it just stopped allowing religion to lay down laws many year ago.
The option is of course a hard brexit, supported by some on this thread. You give the cake back and either starve or bake a new one. The suggested ingredients of the new one are as follows:
- a hint of hope
- a soupcon of a wing and a prayer
- a great big dollop of being the 51st State of America
- a tablespoon full of Chinese dumping ground
- a smidgen of off-shore tax haven for multinationals
- a sliver of dream of taking back control
All prepared, baked and distributed by the internationally renowned purveyors of patisserie, the House of Rees-Mogg, Johnson & Gove
God f*cking help us.
Forming an opinion on an issue that comes down as either yes or no is not always as simple as you seem to think. On this particular question I’ll go as far as saying that not one single person was qualified to decide.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.