|
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 |
On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it.
It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy?
I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote.
|
On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it.
If someone said "vote for A" where A is something that can be defined in different ways, how does a majority result solve said definition problem? MyTH isn't pointing to the slim majority as evidence that it can be ignored, rather that the margins were thin and the actual thing voted on was unclear enough to warrant a lot of skepticism surrounding its implementation.
|
On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it.
It's not uncommon for "big changes" (very vague term, but I think Brexit qualifies  ) to require more than just a 50% majority to go through.
|
Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage.
|
On November 03 2016 21:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It's not uncommon for "big changes" (very vague term, but I think Brexit qualifies ) to require more than just a 50% majority to go through.
Yeah but you are talking about a country with devolved governments and extreme regional differences. And a question which was phrased as; leave things the way they are or do you want change? Without any type of frame of reference as to what these changes would be apart from nationalistic pride.
And for those who don't realise this going through parliament will require transparency of the negiotating stance. There is extreme divide behind hard and soft brexit. And furthermore more by the morons who think they can pick and choose the benefits of the single market.
|
On November 03 2016 21:12 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It's not uncommon for "big changes" (very vague term, but I think Brexit qualifies ) to require more than just a 50% majority to go through.
Yeah, in most parliaments of modern democracies most important issues, bills, laws etc. in theory have to pass a majority decision, which is 2/3 of all votes. Sounds logical and fair to me. And there's no need to drop the whole concept of democracy, it just means in times of mass communication (as in, basically anyone can reach everyone) you have to put in place much tighter restrictions of a vote, when a large part or even the whole population is affected.
This wouldn't cripple institutions, I believe it would even heal them, as they'd have to really think about whether it is smart to try and pass whatever they want to pass at that point in time or wait a little longer or not even consider it at all. Right now there's so much shit getting passed in parliaments all around the world without even 50% of all members attending. This needs to stop and every member of parliament needs to be held accountable for their behaviour. I can't choose at which day I go to work, why should they?
Oh, you can't fill your pockets with presents from the industry or the banking sector if you actually do your fucking job and legislate your fucking country, like people elected you to do? Well shit, go take another job you actually have to work hard for to get "rich".
But for when it counts, like voting on intervention in Syria, suddenly everyone shows up and votes yes. After, people get asked if they actually have any clue about the conflict there and who they think they're supporting with their vote and you shit bricks, when you get to hear their moronic statements, lies and excuses as to why they couldn't be informed about an issue that could potentially cost lives of their fellow countrymen.
Sorry for the rant, shit like this pisses me off so much.
|
On November 03 2016 21:27 bardtown wrote:
Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage.
Like Mythical just edited in his post, Parliament will presumably want to see a proper leaving strategy before voting on the issue. Saying next to nothing about her plans won't be the way to get their votes lol.
The argument of "the people voted Brexit" falls flat on its face if Brexit can mean several very different things, and it's unclear which the people voted for.
|
On November 03 2016 21:35 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:27 bardtown wrote:
Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage. Like Mythical just edited in his post, Parliament will presumably want to see a proper leaving strategy before voting on the issue. Saying next to nothing about her plans won't be the way to get their votes lol. The argument of "the people voted Brexit" falls flat on its face if Brexit can mean several very different things, and it's unclear which the people voted for.
Brexit = leaving the EU = Article 50.
Not complicated. You can't negotiate a deal between Labour and the Tories - they would only ever agree on a deal that the EU would never accept in the first place. The deal that comes out of the Article 50 process is decided between the UK government and the EU.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51490 Posts
On November 03 2016 21:27 bardtown wrote:
Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage.
Hope this happens, Corbyn came out saying he is thankful that this gets to be discussed before the Government do it, but never mentioned anything about blocking it. Just that he wanted to discuss the terms which i dont understand why it needs to be done before we pull out. Surely that can be debated afterwards? However as long as it is "swiftly" resolved that is all that matters to me. I do not want to be wondering if we are in or out of the EU in 6months time 
|
Canada8989 Posts
On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote.
Well first the polls showed the No up at least 2 point before the election, we can't change the election with the poll because there are only meant to show an image of what the population think, first there is a lot of mistake in them just like there are in any statistical representation and second in our system what people think is secondery to what people chose. It is a problem of our democraty that put us in situation like a French president at 4% aprouval rating but it is very hard to imagine how we could change it.
Also it you should remember some referendum in Canada, first of course the 2 in Québec (if someone who is both canadian and French dosen't remember those I might jump of a bridge) and also the referendum on the Charlottetown accord and the conscription during WW2. There was probably other in some province I can't say I know them all.
And yes I agree that the procedure to get out of the EU was a not very clear, but it really could not have been more clear seeing has it was never done before and that the EU was not particulary clear on what the peocedure was going to be. The voters chosed to vote for Brexit despite the lack of information around the way it would go. It could also at gone the other way and afraid the people of the concequence of their action in the futur. For exemple fear played a big role in the Québec referendum, and I guess the Scotland to, pushing them to vote no because there was fear of the, mostly about the economic response but no one (well some probably did lets say no one sensible) say we should overturn the vote for it (and the second referendum margin in Québec was less then 1%).
So in the end the british voted and the politician should respect those vote. Now there could be other referendum as the process go on like: "Should we give the mandate to our negociator to negociate with the EU to keep free circulation of people" that way Brexit would be closer to what the British choses but in the end even if I don't agree with it they voted for the Brexit so there has to be a Brexit.
And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote?
|
On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote?
To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities.
|
Canada8989 Posts
On November 03 2016 22:05 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote? To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities.
Ah interesting, just to be clear those are directs votes in a referendum we are talking about right? Not deputy votes?
I guess the thinking behind it is to protect the right of regional minority, lets say the french if they are less then the deutch?
|
On November 03 2016 22:10 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:05 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote? To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities. Ah interesting, just to be clear those are directs votes in a referendum we are talking about right? Not deputy votes? I guess the thinking behind it is to protect the right of regional minority, lets say the french if they are less then the deutch?
Nah it's in the senate etc, we haven't had referendums yet afaik.
And it's nothing specific to Belgium, it's common practice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority
|
On November 03 2016 22:05 Laurens wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote? To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities.
The Lisbon treaty wouldn't have got a 2/3rd majority in parliament and if put to the public it would not have got even a straightforward majority.
|
On November 03 2016 20:41 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 19:51 Pandemona wrote:
Voted to stay in EU, yet this decision is actually the worst that could happen. We had in places arrangements and working on trade agreements to try outside of EU. Now a stupid court tells us, oh wait you need to put it to a parliamentary vote. Even though 12 months ago said Parliament agreed that Referendum vote.
Now we are gonna be sat in limbo for years, MPs "debating" the issue to death, nothing happens we dont truly stay in EU and we don't come out, this is absolutely terrible news. Also just further divides the country into In and Out people/places and causes more rifts. Instead people were coming to realize about leaving the EU, people were starting to make arrangements, now it all could change again, it is so silly. Looks like in every major player economy in the west (namely US, GB and Germany) politicians are really eager to create said rifts in society, whether it be Clinton vs. Trump, Brexit vs. Remain or the absolutely ludicrous refugee "crisis". One would assume a politicians job would actually be the exact opposite, make compromises and ease tensions in society.
Great observation. A consequence of inequality. Both informational & income. The more it grows, the more distributions ( of knowledge, wealth, social capital, etc ) become 'peaky' on a constant average, the more people are left out. Even if the situation is objectively not worse, inequality then creates a perverse incentive to abuse 80/20 distributions, and deliver tailor-made populist messages. Inequality is the fuel that powers populism.
How we respond with this rise in inequality will be one of the defining tests of our time. Until then 'democratic accidents' will become increasingly common.
|
On November 03 2016 22:15 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:05 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote? To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities. The Lisbon treaty wouldn't have got a 2/3rd majority in parliament and if put to the public it would not have got even a straightforward majority.
And we base this solely on... nothing.
|
So Theresa May's entire plan was to get the EU to enact Article 50 so she an others would not have to vote on and be on the record?
Seems like a pretty stupid idea.
|
On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote.
Actually and to your point when adjusted for participation rate the majority in favour Brexit was about 1% of the population. Gambling the future of the country on a statistical error with no fallback measures is one of the reasons why Cameron had to fall on his sword.
|
On November 03 2016 22:17 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 22:15 bardtown wrote:On November 03 2016 22:05 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:57 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 21:08 MyTHicaL wrote:On November 03 2016 21:05 Nakajin wrote:On November 03 2016 20:51 MyTHicaL wrote:
They keep going on and on about the "majority" vote.. it was a 52% majority, a lot people now wish they hadn't voted that way. He seems to be pulling a page out of Trump's book- if we don't get what we want let's get angry!
I wonder if the vote was won either way by 1 vote would that have stood as a majority? Completely ignorant Cameron setting no guidelines
The other option is to avoid the risk altogether just like that Swedish bank did and withdraw everything. It would depend what type of risk you wish to suffer.
Wtf of course you stood by the majority that is the principle of democraty. There is no need to put guidelines. They tried to do it in Canada and it was the stupidest thing in the world. You don't change the issue of the vote because you don't agree with it, or you belive it should have gone the other way. I mean if a majority of the vote is not enough to win you better just drop the whole concept of democraty as we have done it. It means that (if the figures still stand) that 48% of the population does not want this and will be forced to follow the rest of the country including many regions that entirely voted against it. Is that democracy or centralised power dictating policy? I don't seem to remember a referendum in Canada, being Canadian. If one party wins in a general election (which is completely different); in many countries this means that they will control that % of seats in the parliamentary house. Therefore being able to only influence legislation to a confirmed (supposedly) same % that they won in the democratic vote. And finally (god that is a long post) I am honestly intrigue by the more then 50% comment. Are we talking about regional more then 50%, like 50% in Wallonie but also 50% in Bruxell and 50% in Flanders. Or is there actual vote were you need to have more then half of the vote? To change the Belgian constitution, a 2/3rd majority of votes is needed. Plenty countries have similar rules about supermajorities. The Lisbon treaty wouldn't have got a 2/3rd majority in parliament and if put to the public it would not have got even a straightforward majority. And we base this solely on... nothing.
Based on the parliamentary controversy caused by Lisbon and the public vote on Brexit. Pretty good indicators.
|
On November 03 2016 21:46 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2016 21:35 Laurens wrote:On November 03 2016 21:27 bardtown wrote:
Doubt it will make any difference at all. All May has to do is go into the debate, say next to nothing of her plans and instead make it about either supporting or blocking the people's decision. Wouldn't even be surprised if Corbyn whips Labour into backing triggering of A50. A very significant majority of constituencies (roughly 420 of 570 in England/Wales and over 2:1 UK level) voted to Leave, so even if every MP with a Remain constituency dissents, it won't be enough.
More likely this will become a party political exercise. Could cause the Tories some issues if they have significant dissent.
If it actually gets blocked, there will be real outrage. Like Mythical just edited in his post, Parliament will presumably want to see a proper leaving strategy before voting on the issue. Saying next to nothing about her plans won't be the way to get their votes lol. The argument of "the people voted Brexit" falls flat on its face if Brexit can mean several very different things, and it's unclear which the people voted for. Brexit = leaving the EU = Article 50. Not complicated. You can't negotiate a deal between Labour and the Tories - they would only ever agree on a deal that the EU would never accept in the first place. The deal that comes out of the Article 50 process is decided between the UK government and the EU.
Yes complicated. What, if anything, did the people say about EEA access ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
