|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
United Kingdom20327 Posts
The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%.
50/50 means 1:1 voting
55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way
60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way
even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50
|
On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50
And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate?
|
On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html
I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter.
Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision.
[B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate?
Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after?
|
On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. Show nested quote +[B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after?
If the country voted based on the "facts" Leave gave them, then Leave backtracked, isn't it fair to say referendum should be redone properly? You support cheating if you say no.
|
On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. Show nested quote +[B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after?
Fortunately it's only an advisory referendum so that discussion can actually be had whenever.
|
what the fuck is wrong with you people and your excuses ...
if someone is stupid, is because you made him stupid. you ruled the god damn country with your liberal, egalitarian, democratic, inclusive, free and whateverelse culture for decades now and apparently stupid is what you have to show for.
own your fuck up of not giving a rats ass about (factual)education.
the stupid is your doing. you figured what?, that if you keep them distracted with the likes of geordie shore or the kardashians you'll be able to do what ever you want, forever?.
or, fully knowing that 20% - 30% or the people are racists, you thought that dumping 2mill turks in there then telling them to suck it, is somehow a brilliant fucking idea ...
whattheactualfuck.
(yea i mixed some things up, but the main point is valid)
|
On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. Show nested quote +[B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after?
Sadly, people being too entranched in their narrow views and politicians being too hungry for power instead of acting for the common good, such a discussion could have never happened. Leave partisans, knowing that if they won if was going to be close, would never accept more than 50% majority, and Remain partisans, knowing that asking for a 60% or 2/3 majority would be perceived as "tyranny from the EU and the disgusting elite" and thus would deserve their own cause, would never ask for that.
|
On June 26 2016 00:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 21:11 Tula wrote:
Could someone from the UK please enlighten me whether there is a provision for a binding poll in any way in the UK or is a referendum like this (where all the parties agree that it should be binding) the most you can do?
Personally the only way back I would see in the Austrian system (different constitution, heck we actually have a written constitution) would be to negotiate fully now and then hold a second binding poll if that is truly what the people want.
On the topic in general my british friends (all between 30 and 40 years old) are pretty depressed and angry about this but they don't see a way out now that the result is in. The UK has no constitution at all. It is a monarchy in which the powers of the monarch are wielded by an elected parliament. There is only one rule. Every parliament has absolute power and may do anything it wishes except limit the powers of a future parliament. So that means that while a parliament may declare on Monday that they will consider themselves bound by the outcome of a referendum to be held on Wednesday the Monday parliament has no power to limit the power of the parliament considering what to do when it gets the results on Friday. That make sense?
It makes as much sense as I always thought it did, but it answered my question fully. Basically there is no provision for more binding referendums but neither is parliament actually bound by the result of this one.
Still I cannot see any realistic way out of this hole, simply re-polling for whatever reason isn't it, and no one bothered to set up or clarify margins that needed to be reached so the slim majority is sufficient.
I guess we'll spend the next 10 years cursing Cameron and Farage for what they have wrought here...
|
On June 26 2016 01:23 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. [B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after? Sadly, people being too entranched in their narrow views and politicians being too hungry for power instead of acting for the common good, such a discussion could have never happened. Leave partisans, knowing that if they won if was going to be close, would never accept more than 50% majority, and Remain partisans, knowing that asking for a 60% or 2/3 majority would be perceived as "tyranny from the EU and the disgusting elite" and thus would deserve their own cause, would never ask for that.
Maybe, but it wouldn't change a thing anyway. If "leave" had gotten exactly this result but needed to get 55% according to the setup of the referendum the moral victory would have been theirs anyway and they could have easily won a follow up poll a year or two later simply by blaming the necessity on "Eu Dictatorship". So the same argument why it wasn't done (or asked for) beforehand is the reason why it wouldn't be possible even if they had thrown such stones in the way.
Personally I regret that Britain is leaving, but the way your politicians (specifically Cameron and Farage) have poisoned the discussion in the years before I saw no other outcome as this clusterfuck.
|
On June 26 2016 01:19 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. [B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after? If the country voted based on the "facts" Leave gave them, then Leave backtracked, isn't it fair to say referendum should be redone properly? You support cheating if you say no.
Stupid people decided not to inform themselves before voting because most of the Leave lies were thoroughly debunked before the referendum.
You reap what you sow.
|
On June 26 2016 00:29 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2016 00:17 Shield wrote:My country was communist not a long time ago, but I was born after democracy was reintroduced, so I'm a big supporter of democracy. However, a friend of mine says you can't give referendum to ordinary people when they're not nuclear physicists (there was a referendum in Bulgaria if we need another nuclear plant), economists (UK's case when most people can't predict what is going to happen after Brexit), etc. So, I tend to agree with that friend of mine. You really can't let plebs make important decisions. Cynical but true. Just remember what one of your own said:
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. Winston Churchill
I'm not against referendums. Not even one bit, but they're for very informed people. I don't think half of brexiters were even well informed about consequences of their choice. For democracy to work it requires a level of knowledgeable voters, people who look critically at the options before them and make a choice based on that. Sadly not everyone does this. However limiting who can and cannot vote leads to a whole new set of problems where certain groups get excluded because their opinion on what is right does not match with those deciding who gets to vote. All in all Democracy is a system riddled with deep flaws. It is however also better then all the other systems humanity has tried over the millennia. That's the true, democracy is the worst and best system we've had. It has no alternative at the moment. On the other hand, I'm willing to try a democratic model which lets long-term laws and referendum be decided only by people with a university degree. You'll still have idiots but not as many as now. Democracy only works when the society is well informed, well educated and intelligent. Unfortunately, Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson are none of these! Edit: Before someone shouts "it's not democratic", it is democratic. You just have minimum requirements to participate and anyone can fulfill them if they educate themselves.
there's many known potential variations to how one would construct a government that would still classify as Democracy.
There's just a very low rate of innovation, and in people trying out the innovations. People are very conservative when it comes to choosing government designs (not a bad thing necessarily). We've learned so much in the past century though about organizations and systems, that there's a lot of things that could be tried.
|
On June 25 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote:
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October?? Because smooth transitions take time and no one wants to make dumb rash decisions in a time of crisis (aka now).
In general I would agree but the problem with him staying in power so long is that w/o a Prime Minister/revamped UK government it will take months before the parliament of the UK will even send in the papers/request to the EU parliament for leaving the UK. Basically it can take up to 2 years before the UK has to leave the EU after they have sent in the papers. This will most definitely increase uncertainty among investors in the UK and the EU.
|
On June 26 2016 02:11 tenacity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 25 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote:
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October?? Because smooth transitions take time and no one wants to make dumb rash decisions in a time of crisis (aka now). In general I would agree but the problem with him staying in power so long is that w/o a Prime Minister/revamped UK government it will take months before the parliament of the UK will even send in the papers/request to the EU parliament for leaving the UK. Basically it can take up to 2 years before the UK has to leave the EU after they have sent in the papers. This will most definitely increase uncertainty among investors in the UK and the EU.
Considering all the backtracking and "we have time" the Leavers are spouting now that they won I'm pretty sure article 50 would not be invoked this year even if Cameron was replaced by Boris Johnson tomorrow.
|
On June 26 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 02:11 tenacity wrote:On June 25 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote:
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October?? Because smooth transitions take time and no one wants to make dumb rash decisions in a time of crisis (aka now). In general I would agree but the problem with him staying in power so long is that w/o a Prime Minister/revamped UK government it will take months before the parliament of the UK will even send in the papers/request to the EU parliament for leaving the UK. Basically it can take up to 2 years before the UK has to leave the EU after they have sent in the papers. This will most definitely increase uncertainty among investors in the UK and the EU. Considering all the backtracking and "we have time" the Leavers are spouting now that they won I'm pretty sure article 50 would not be invoked this year even if Cameron was replaced by Boris Johnson tomorrow.
But why would they want to wait for so long? Before the referendum they wanted to leave the EU asap. Maybe they think that the longer they wait, the EU will make concession to the UK to eliminate uncertainty for business/its citizen. This will not work out and in the end hurt the UK even more.
|
On June 26 2016 02:21 tenacity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2016 02:11 tenacity wrote:On June 25 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote:
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October?? Because smooth transitions take time and no one wants to make dumb rash decisions in a time of crisis (aka now). In general I would agree but the problem with him staying in power so long is that w/o a Prime Minister/revamped UK government it will take months before the parliament of the UK will even send in the papers/request to the EU parliament for leaving the UK. Basically it can take up to 2 years before the UK has to leave the EU after they have sent in the papers. This will most definitely increase uncertainty among investors in the UK and the EU. Considering all the backtracking and "we have time" the Leavers are spouting now that they won I'm pretty sure article 50 would not be invoked this year even if Cameron was replaced by Boris Johnson tomorrow. But why would they want to wait for so long? Before the referendum they wanted to leave the EU asap. Maybe they think that the longer they wait, the EU will make concession to the UK to eliminate uncertainty for business/its citizen. This will not work out and in the end and hurt the UK even more.
Before the referendum they did not expect to win.
|
On June 26 2016 02:21 tenacity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 02:13 Gorsameth wrote:On June 26 2016 02:11 tenacity wrote:On June 25 2016 23:47 Gorsameth wrote:On June 25 2016 23:13 tenacity wrote:
why does Cameron not resign immediately or within the next 2-3 weeks but wants to wait until October?? Because smooth transitions take time and no one wants to make dumb rash decisions in a time of crisis (aka now). In general I would agree but the problem with him staying in power so long is that w/o a Prime Minister/revamped UK government it will take months before the parliament of the UK will even send in the papers/request to the EU parliament for leaving the UK. Basically it can take up to 2 years before the UK has to leave the EU after they have sent in the papers. This will most definitely increase uncertainty among investors in the UK and the EU. Considering all the backtracking and "we have time" the Leavers are spouting now that they won I'm pretty sure article 50 would not be invoked this year even if Cameron was replaced by Boris Johnson tomorrow. But why would they want to wait for so long? Before the referendum they wanted to leave the EU asap. Maybe they think that the longer they wait, the EU will make concession to the UK to eliminate uncertainty for business/its citizen. This will not work out and in the end hurt the UK even more.
Probably best to make decisions from a position of stability. It's not a good time to make major deals right before a transition in power.
|
Is there any serious video that someone can link with arguements for remain?Everything i have seen so far is terror like the armagedon is coming or sentimental bullshits like we are better together, we dont want to be alone and the germans are our friends, we are giving our democracy and we take back cheap phonecalls and cheap airtickets.
I mean a calm video with arguments for remain like this
Brexit: Facts Not Fear
|
On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. Show nested quote +[B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after?
What country do you live in ? Here in the UK we do expect a government to complete its election manifesto. Some times this can't happen due to the commons opposition or a backbench revote
The current government had this referendum as part of its manifesto which has now been honored.
I expect the Britexit to fulfil their promises, not backtrack on TV.
1 . all funds redirected to NHS
2 all non nationals be assessed on a points based system. And deported if they do not meet the requirements
|
On June 26 2016 01:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:19 Shield wrote:On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. [B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after? If the country voted based on the "facts" Leave gave them, then Leave backtracked, isn't it fair to say referendum should be redone properly? You support cheating if you say no. Stupid people decided not to inform themselves before voting because most of the Leave lies were thoroughly debunked before the referendum. You reap what you sow.
UK/England youth reap what babyboomer bigots sow...
|
On June 26 2016 02:32 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2016 01:10 LegalLord wrote:On June 26 2016 00:04 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:59 LegalLord wrote:On June 25 2016 23:39 Topdoller wrote:On June 25 2016 23:24 LegalLord wrote:[/B
It's laughable that people are calling for a revote. That sounds like the "vote until democracy gets our desired result" that the EU is known and hated for. The referendum yielded this result, now it's time to live with that new set of conditions and focus on how to make the best of the situation for their benefit. Certainly there are limits to what can be done because the UK has only so much negotiating power, but there is more than one path it can take with regards to how it leaves.
As for the conditions of the referendum, the cutoff, the people who were allowed to vote? Maybe that argument should have been made before the referendum was scheduled, not after. Maybe it was - and that argument failed, despite the fact that this was obviously a pro-Remain government that put that referendum forward. Under the mutually agreed upon conditions, Leave won and Remain did not. You can't just change that because just under half of those who casted a vote didn't get the result they wanted. The fact the leader's of the out campaign are backtracking on theire promises the day after their victory is the most concerning. Their whole campaign was based on fear and now its looking like deceit. This is what becomes of any country where its populatio make decision based on no manifesto, We have just spent almost ten years in recession and now the economy is heading into a black hole. I am expecting another ten years before we will recover. Unfortunately, campaign promises and the tendency of them not to be achieved is an age-old story of politics. Maybe it's better to focus on electing a leadership that will actually make it happen, than to find an escape from the referendum results? Yeah usually it takes a few years to realize that not all objectives are achievable.. but the next day come on are you serious !!! http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/eu-referendum-result-nigel-farage-nhs-pledge-disowns-350-million-pounds-a7099906.html I mean, it's Farage and not the major Leave campaign. And listening to what he said, it sounded like he was just leaving his options open. Maybe spend the money on the NHS, maybe on some other project, like schools. Makes for a good soundbite but I wouldn't say it's really what you say it is. Besides, it's not like Farage is the only possible choice for leading the leaving process. Not even one of the likely ones, for that matter. Almost all campaign promises are backtracked when it comes time to decision making. I wish it weren't so but that's just how it has always worked. But as things worked out, the Leave side won and you can't just undo decisions fully consistent with how the country chose to vote, simply because you didn't like the decision. [B]On June 26 2016 01:05 kollin wrote: On June 26 2016 01:03 Cyro wrote:The petition is interesting and show the problem with making such a huge change with such slim mandate. Should have required at least 60%. 50/50 means 1:1 voting 55/45 means 1.22x more people voted one way 60/40 means 1.5x more people voted one way even 55/45 is a massive difference from 50/50 And shouldn't such an enormous change require a large mandate? Wouldn't that discussion have been better off being had before the referendum, not after? What country do you live in ? Here in the UK we do expect a government to complete its election manifesto. Some times this can't happen due to the commons opposition or a backbench revote The current government had this referendum as part of its manifesto which has now been honored. I expect the Britexit to fulfil their promises, not backtrack on TV. 1 . all funds redirected to NHS 2 all non nationals be assessed on a points based system. And deported if they do not meet the requirements
That's incredibly naive...
|
|
|
|
|
|
9358
2895
1345
EPT
