A lot of leavers were brainwashed by the Sun or just abjectly racist. Their reasoning powers arent great when they were foolrd by someone who sang Nazi songs

 

I call Godwin! :P

 

at school or by Bpris froggin Johnson. Don't forget the not-insignificant portion who voted that way as they thought it was stickin it to the Elite, when it was what the ACTUAL elite wanted, or a protest vote against Cameron.

 

I hate to be controversial again :teresa: but the idea that certain groups lack sufficient reasoning power to make an informed choice, was one of the same arguments that were used to deny women the vote...

 

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

Edited September 30, 20177 yr by vidcapper

But neither negative or positive consequences can be known until *after* Brexit has happened.

 

Murdoch has already used the weakened pound as a ploy to take over Sky.

 

This is bad for everyone except him and his.

I call Godwin! :P

I hate to be controversial again :teresa: but the idea that certain groups lack sufficient reasoning power to make an informed choice, was one of the same arguments that were used to deny women the vote...

 

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

 

So you say voting based on 'dey took our jawwbs', immigration, nothin to do with the EU, and some jingoistic idea of Old Empire were informed reasons? :)

So you say voting based on 'dey took our jawwbs', immigration, nothin to do with the EU, and some jingoistic idea of Old Empire were informed reasons? :)

 

No, I was saying that it's wrong to arbitrarily dismiss voters with ideologies you don't approve of.

 

I assume you wouldn't go as as suggesting that 'racists' shouldn't be allowed to vote? :unsure:

Edited September 30, 20177 yr by vidcapper

No, but I am saying the racists 'won' the vote for leave - just

No, but I am saying the racists 'won' the vote for leave - just

 

And you say that makes the result illegitimate?

Then it must really p*ss you off that I am still on the winning side. :teresa:

 

not pissed off at all that "you" are on the "winning" side. Much rather be on the losing side and be right....

not pissed off at all that "you" are on the "winning" side. Much rather be on the losing side and be right....

 

Then we are both happy.

But neither negative or positive consequences can be known until *after* Brexit has happened.

What on earth are you talking about?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

Brexit will not be finalised until Mar 2019 at the earliest, therefore we cannot know how it will turn out before that date. :rolleyes:

Brexit will not be finalised until Mar 2019 at the earliest, therefore we cannot know how it will turn out before that date. :rolleyes:

Well to the extent that the exact nature of the final deal is yet to be agreed, we can't be sure. However, there are only so many variations for each outcome.

 

For example, if the final deal were to include us being exempt from EU food hygiene requirements, we'd need to hire a load of food inspectors to check that farms and factories were adhering to the new British standards. That's not prediction or speculation, that's just a fact. Alternatively we may decide we want to still be part of the EU standards, in which case we wouldn't need to hire anyone.

 

It seems like you saying "no one knows" is actually your way of saying that you can't be bothered to think about anything which might affect your existing opinion.

And you say that makes the result illegitimate?

 

Yes. It needs to be much % higher.

Then we are both happy.

Yes deliriously happy the UK economy is going down the toilet thanks to happy leavers....

It seems like you saying "no one knows" is actually your way of saying that you can't be bothered to think about anything which might affect your existing opinion.

 

Oh that won't be a problem, since nothing will change my opinion that we're better out than in.

 

Yes. It needs to be much % higher.

 

How much %?

 

Yes deliriously happy the UK economy is going down the toilet thanks to happy leavers....

 

Except that it *isn't* ...

Back to the threshold argument - the issue of a threshold was discussed when the referendum legislation was being discussed. The idea was rejected by the government because the vote was only advisory so a threshold was not necessary.

People should check out what's happening in Catalonia right now, it's an absolute disgrace that the EU has been very silent on what the Spanish government is doing to the people. The EU represents anti-democracy.

Back to the threshold argument - the issue of a threshold was discussed when the referendum legislation was being discussed. The idea was rejected by the government because the vote was only advisory so a threshold was not necessary.

 

More likely they didn't want another situation like the first Scottish devolution referendum, where 'Yes' won, but was rejected on threshold - that just poured petrol on the fire of Scottish nationalism!

 

Also, thresholds offer an open invitation to manipulation. Opponents of change could simply boycott the poll, reducing the turnout below the necessary level.

More likely they didn't want another situation like the first Scottish devolution referendum, where 'Yes' won, but was rejected on threshold - that just poured petrol on the fire of Scottish nationalism!

 

Also, thresholds offer an open invitation to manipulation. Opponents of change could simply boycott the poll, reducing the turnout below the necessary level.

That is why I don't support the idea of a minimum turnout (unless it is set very low). The threshold should be based unpeople who actually turn up and vote.

People should check out what's happening in Catalonia right now, it's an absolute disgrace that the EU has been very silent on what the Spanish government is doing to the people. The EU represents anti-democracy.

 

The EU is not Spain.

 

Plus, I think you'll find every country in the world has a history of not allowing breakaway parts of it. Should the people of Nottinghamshire be allowed to vote to leave the UK? Milton Keynes? It would be a bit like London (the rich bit) being allowed to break away from England, leaving a much-poorer England and much-richer London. If they allow it to happen then other bits of Spain (say, Basque) will demand the same, and suddenly you have many small countries.

 

That's why Spain isn't keen. Same reason the USA would never allow California to leave the Union and become one of the richest countries on the face of the planet.

That is why I don't support the idea of a minimum turnout (unless it is set very low). The threshold should be based unpeople who actually turn up and vote.

 

But if the required margin was 60/40 and the result was 59-41, then almost 3/5ths of voters would be pretty pissed-off!