But the trouble with 3 options is that none are likely to reach 50%, and that means none with have a decisive mandate.

 

50% and just over is no mandate. Sorry. That means almost half are not of the same opinion and leads to a divided mess and undemocratic attacks on the VERY large, and not silent, 'minorty'!!

That's the problem isn't it - what 'extreme views' means is very subjective, and varies over time, too.

"Right-wing Hitler-lovers" isn't particularly subjective or time-dependent in this context, and that is what this point originally came from.

50% and just over is no mandate. Sorry. That means almost half are not of the same opinion and leads to a divided mess and undemocratic attacks on the VERY large, and not silent, 'minorty'!!

 

Oh really? Had Remain won 52-48, you would have claimed there was a mandate for staying in...

As it favours the status quo. It would have bren a rerun vote in a few years anyway as 52% i NOT a definitive result - especially NOT to vhange a status quo.

 

The bast*rd Tories expect 65% at LEAST to go on strike

We've finally got a hint of the sort of regulation Leavers want to scrap. David Davis has described as "mad" the decision, on health and safety grounds, not to subject people working on Big Ben to the sound of its chimes every 15 minutes. Maybe he would like to volunteer to subject himself to that noise every 15 minutes for the next four years.

 

Maybe he could start slowly and build up to the full four times an hour. To begin with, he should have the sound blasted out next to him whenever he is interviewed on radio and television. At least it would mean we wouldn't have to listen to his lies and obfuscation any more. I would be prepared to make an exception. I would quite like to hear what he thinks the residents of Grenfell Tower's attitude to health and safety regulations might be.

 

hah!

 

I'm loving the supposed former-Remain-supporting-assistant tweets about Davis' penchant for working (at most!) 3 days a week, for drunkenly leching over Diane Abbot (allegedly, though I'm still waiting for a denial), having Farage on speed-dial, mistakenly ringing Michel Barnier thinking it was one of his very right-wing mates, and other gems.

 

Frankly it's all too beautifully-believable to be believable.. but I hope it is :lol:

A second referendum in an environment where the press are legally obligated to print the truth and misleading and manipulating lies are punished by a proper regulator would be interesting. As would the BBC actually calling out the leave sides bullshit instead of believing that impartiality means permitting half truths and outright lies to go unchallenged.

 

Would be a game changer to see Farage strapped to a polygraph the entire campaign.

 

That sort of regulator wouldn't be effective, as there would have to be an investigation into every allegation, however spurious, and that would take more time than they had before the vote.

 

Any perception of the BBC taking sides, would likely create a public backlash, strengthening the side that appeared to be targeted.

This letter appeared in the FT yesterday. Anyone care to provide an answer?

 

Sir, Chris Peer (Letters, August 16) makes an important point that has barely entered public discussion in regard to the great Brexit debate. How is it that Germany is such a successful exporter despite being “hamstrung” by its inability to forge free-trade agreements with the rest of the world by its membership of the EU? I for one would be grateful for an explanation from an FT reader committed to Brexit as to how this is possible.

This letter appeared in the FT yesterday. Anyone care to provide an answer?

 

Me! Me! I can! The German economy is so successful because they make things which people want to buy! The UK doesn't make stuff, they sold it all off or closed it down. There will be precious few extra markets for the little that we do provide cos most investors used the UK as an access into the EU and that's why we have done so well in recent decades eg "banking" who are all buggering off or dabbling with policies that will let us bail them out again before long cos they no other mug, I mean, country, will...

 

Did I get a gold star? :lol:

 

 

Me! Me! I can! The German economy is so successful because they make things which people want to buy! The UK doesn't make stuff, they sold it all off or closed it down. There will be precious few extra markets for the little that we do provide cos most investors used the UK as an access into the EU and that's why we have done so well in recent decades eg "banking" who are all buggering off or dabbling with policies that will let us bail them out again before long cos they no other mug, I mean, country, will...

 

Did I get a gold star? :lol:

You'll have to ask FT readers that question :lol:

Taking the topic in a different direction...

 

Before the referendum, did you intend to respect the result, whatever it turned out to be?

 

 

Taking the topic in a different direction...

 

Before the referendum, did you intend to respect the result, whatever it turned out to be?

 

I can only speak for myself, and I decided to respect the very very narrow decision as much as Nigel Farage did when he thought Leave had narrowly lost.

 

"This is NOT over" he fumed and frothed at the mouth, "A result that close needs another referendum".

 

For once, and only once, I entirely agreed with him.

I'm still of the opinion that the referendum shouldn't have been run in the first place

 

I'm still of the opinion that the referendum shouldn't have been run in the first place

 

100% Agree. A catastrophic failure of leadership by Cameron.

 

“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.”

I'm in favour of referendums, as direct democracy allows people who feel disconnected from the political system to have a real, direct say in the running of the country. However, it does mean that we get things like Brexit.

 

Therefore, I propose that the UK has a referendum every 2 years, however it must only be on matters that are highly trivial, and with changes that would not really effect day-to-day life if implemented. Such referendums could include whether Staines-Upon-Thames should be renamed back to just "Staines", whether the Beefeaters should change their uniform colour from red to shocking pink, and whether all MPs should be mandated to wear Top Hats whilst sitting in parliament.

What's everyone's favourite referendum?

 

I'd have to say the referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon held in Ireland back in 2008. If you don't like the result, just ignore it!

Edited August 23, 20177 yr by Doctor Blind

I can only speak for myself, and I decided to respect the very very narrow decision as much as Nigel Farage did when he thought Leave had narrowly lost.

 

"This is NOT over" he fumed and frothed at the mouth, "A result that close needs another referendum".

 

For once, and only once, I entirely agreed with him.

 

ISTM this is a bit of a red herring, as even if he had not said that, there would still have been demands for a rerun.

 

 

I'm still of the opinion that the referendum shouldn't have been run in the first place

 

See below.

 

100% Agree. A catastrophic failure of leadership by Cameron.

 

“I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.”

 

Cameron had been painted into a corner - if he had not held a referendum, UKIP support would have continued to rise to the point where they could have held the balance of power in a hung parliament, whereupon they would have been able to force their coalition partners to hold a referendum anyway.

 

BTW, who were you quoting about referenda above?

 

I'm in favour of referendums, as direct democracy allows people who feel disconnected from the political system to have a real, direct say in the running of the country.

 

I am very much in favour of referenda, as all too often we are forced to swallow aspects of a party's manifesto we dislike, in order to get the parts we do like enacted. Referendums return power to ordinary voters, who are always the ones who suffer the direct consequences of gov't decisions.

No.

 

The general public is not made up of millions of experts well versed in economics. Things like the EU, which can be hijacked by billionaire press, which runs rampant in the UK, should be left OFF the referendum, which is tyranny by SLIGHT majority as far as I see it. Pure number democracy fails where republics thrive.

No.

 

The general public is not made up of millions of experts well versed in economics. Things like the EU, which can be hijacked by billionaire press, which runs rampant in the UK, should be left OFF the referendum, which is tyranny by SLIGHT majority as far as I see it. Pure number democracy fails where republics thrive.

 

You do realise that this same argument could be used to suggest abolishing jury trials, since jurors are not trained lawyers...

 

The analogy is obvious though - jurors, being ordinary people, are more likely to appreciate the circumstances of the people involved in a case than the rich legal professionals, and therefore decide on the spirit of the law, rather than the strict letter. Self-defence cases are the best illustration of this.

 

The same applies to Brexit - there were slightly more ordinary people who decided that the EU was detrimental to them/the country, than vice versa. Clearly they mistrusted the experts advising them to vote Remain, as simply wanting to keep their snouts in the trough.

ISTM this is a bit of a red herring, as even if he had not said that, there would still have been demands for a rerun.

See below.

Cameron had been painted into a corner - if he had not held a referendum, UKIP support would have continued to rise to the point where they could have held the balance of power in a hung parliament, whereupon they would have been able to force their coalition partners to hold a referendum anyway.

 

BTW, who were you quoting about referenda above?

I am very much in favour of referenda, as all too often we are forced to swallow aspects of a party's manifesto we dislike, in order to get the parts we do like enacted. Referendums return power to ordinary voters, who are always the ones who suffer the direct consequences of gov't decisions.

A far better solution would be a change in the electoral system. One problem with FPTP is that you only have one choice per party. Part of that is that it is assumed that a vote for the candidate is an endorsement of everything in the manifesto. This, of course, is a ludicrous assumption. Nobody agrees with everything in a party's manifesto.

 

The Single Transferable Vote would give voters a choice of candidate for each party. They can, therefore, give their highest preferences to the candidates whose views are closest to their own.

A far better solution would be a change in the electoral system. One problem with FPTP is that you only have one choice per party. Part of that is that it is assumed that a vote for the candidate is an endorsement of everything in the manifesto. This, of course, is a ludicrous assumption. Nobody agrees with everything in a party's manifesto.

 

Unfortunately politicians rarely, if ever, acknowledge this.

The Single Transferable Vote would give voters a choice of candidate for each party. They can, therefore, give their highest preferences to the candidates whose views are closest to their own.

 

We've finally found something we can wholeheartedly agree on. :)

Edited August 24, 20177 yr by vidcapper