Jump to content

EU Referendum Discussion

lotita
in News and Politics

Featured Replies

The EU refuses to condemn Spanish police violence in Catalonia. :angry:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/...olice-crackdown

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-49...ish-police.html

 

... yet most of you *still* insist this immoral organisation is something we should remain part of. :huh:

But I thought you disapproved of the EU "interfering" :unsure:

  • Replies 1.1k
  • Views 67.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

May and her government at westmonster have refused to condemn the violence, the Scottish Government have. Yet most people *still* insist this immoral organisation is something we should remain part of. :huh:

The UK government has refused to condemn the violence, as have most countries across Europe, but yes let's just pick out the one thing you ideologically oppose for criticism.

 

Well we all know the Tories are spineless toadies!

 

But I thought you disapproved of the EU "interfering" :unsure:

 

Condemning police violence would not be interfering as such.

 

I would hope you both would condemn the Spanish police violence though, as I do.

Edited by vidcapper

May and her government at westmonster have refused to condemn the violence, the Scottish Government have. Yet most people *still* insist this immoral organisation is something we should remain part of. :huh:

The UK government has refused to condemn the violence, as have most countries across Europe, but yes let's just pick out the one thing you ideologically oppose for criticism.

 

Swish, swish, bish, another one in the vidcapper basket!

Swish, swish, bish, another one in the vidcapper basket!

 

So you agree I won that one.

Well we all know the Tories are spineless toadies!

Condemning police violence would not be interfering as such.

 

I would hope you both would condemn the Spanish police violence though, as I do.

I do indeed heavily condemn the actions of the Spanish Government and the Guardia Civil in Catalonia. It’s an affront to democracy and basic human rights

Well we all know the Tories are spineless toadies!

Condemning police violence would not be interfering as such.

 

I would hope you both would condemn the Spanish police violence though, as I do.

Did the EU condemn the UK government after Orgreave? No, I thought not. I can't help feeling that a Spanish enquiry into what happened at the weekend will happen sooner than an enquiry into Orgreave.

 

It would have been far better for the Spanish government to make it clear that they would not act on the result of the referendum. I suspect that the proportion of people voting for independence in those circumstances would have been low enough for them to justify that stance.

Did the EU condemn the UK government after Orgreave? No, I thought not.

 

Probably because the *EU* didn't even *exist* at the time. :rolleyes:

 

 

I have said a lot about the referendum and the undemocratic actions that have followed.

 

I doubt anyone can better this letter to MPs:

 

http://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-storie...cians-1-5218037

 

Oh please - the same old BS that 'failure to vote' means anything other than 'I don't care'.

 

The plain facts are : that the referendum was set up to be decided by a simple majority - there were no thresholds set up on either turnout or margin, so arguing there should have been is just an exercise in futility.

 

IMO virtually no-one who voted in the referendum made their choice in the belief it was 'only advisory', so the idea that if it had been stated in advance that it was binding, would have chanced the result, carries no weight with me.

 

In reality, no government with any wish to be regarded as democratic, would *dare* to ignore the result of a referendum in which a simple majority was the only precondition!

Probably because the *EU* didn't even *exist* at the time. :rolleyes:

Oh please - the same old BS that 'failure to vote' means anything other than 'I don't care'.

 

The plain facts are : that the referendum was set up to be decided by a simple majority - there were no thresholds set up on either turnout or margin, so arguing there should have been is just an exercise in futility.

 

IMO virtually no-one who voted in the referendum made their choice in the belief it was 'only advisory', so the idea that if it had been stated in advance that it was binding, would have chanced the result, carries no weight with me.

 

In reality, no government with any wish to be regarded as democratic, would *dare* to ignore the result of a referendum in which a simple majority was the only precondition!

 

Those arent the facts. Those are YOUR interpretation of historical decisions made by the government of the only person who voted to Remain and then made sure he went Leave the minute he knew the wafer-thin result (and yes it was badly discussed that it was advisory to the general public, but that issue was dealt with in the article). I agree with the the premise: politicians of the 2 main parties have failed to do their duty and discuss the problems ahead: that those carrying out the job are so shit at it and unprepared in the extreme for reality is a fact. Try giving examples of how well they are doing without retreating into the usual "its all the EU's fault" because the EU is there to serve the interest of it's members not countries outside the EU. This is my list of things they have so far achieved:

 

1. errrr

 

That you can choose to overlook our political system and the damage they are doing to it - because you think you "won" - shows just how dangerous not following the correct procedure is - the article, by the way, is about MP's ignoring British democratic procedures. Seems like you DON'T want British democracy back in control, you want a one-sided version of YOUR views taking away British democracy.

 

 

Those arent the facts.

 

What is factually incorrect about this statement : 'the referendum was set up to be decided by a simple majority - there were no thresholds set up on either turnout or margin'

 

That you can choose to overlook our political system and the damage they are doing to it - because you think you "won" - shows just how dangerous not following the correct procedure is

 

I thought Gina Miller ensured that it *was*? Besides, I don't think I won, I KNOW it!

 

In any case, the British system should be what the ordinary voters want it to be, not what the political establishment tells them it should be!

 

Why can you not accept the referendum result? After all, if Remain had won, you would get pretty pissed off if Leavers complained about it non-stop for 15 months...

Edited by vidcapper

Probably because the *EU* didn't even *exist* at the time. :rolleyes:

Oh please - the same old BS that 'failure to vote' means anything other than 'I don't care'.

 

The plain facts are : that the referendum was set up to be decided by a simple majority - there were no thresholds set up on either turnout or margin, so arguing there should have been is just an exercise in futility.

 

IMO virtually no-one who voted in the referendum made their choice in the belief it was 'only advisory', so the idea that if it had been stated in advance that it was binding, would have chanced the result, carries no weight with me.

 

In reality, no government with any wish to be regarded as democratic, would *dare* to ignore the result of a referendum in which a simple majority was the only precondition!

So, if the turnout had been 10%, would you still have expected the government to go ahead?

 

As for your pedantry about the name of the organisation at the time, there's no real point in commenting on that.

What is factually incorrect about this statement : 'the referendum was set up to be decided by a simple majority - there were no thresholds set up on either turnout or margin'

I thought Gina Miller ensured that it *was*? Besides, I don't think I won, I KNOW it!

 

In any case, the British system should be what the ordinary voters want it to be, not what the political establishment tells them it should be!

 

Why can you not accept the referendum result? After all, if Remain had won, you would get pretty pissed off if Leavers complained about it non-stop for 15 months...

No, all Gina Miller did was ensure that there was a vote before triggering Article 50. There was no debate on whether leaving the EU was a good idea.

So, if the turnout had been 10%, would you still have expected the government to go ahead?

 

As for your pedantry about the name of the organisation at the time, there's no real point in commenting on that.

 

If there had been no low-turnout threshold set, then yes, I would expect them to go ahead.

 

But you just *did* comment on it. :P

 

 

No, all Gina Miller did was ensure that there was a vote before triggering Article 50. There was no debate on whether leaving the EU was a good idea.

 

Excuse me - did you miss the six weeks non-stop debate about it, prior to 23rd June? :huh:

 

Besides, IMO the views of 48m voters count for a lot more than 600 or so MP's whose wealth insulates them from the consequences of their decisions!

If there had been no low-turnout threshold set, then yes, I would expect them to go ahead.

 

But you just *did* comment on it. :P

Excuse me - did you miss the six weeks non-stop debate about it, prior to 23rd June? :huh:

 

Besides, IMO the views of 48m voters count for a lot more than 600 or so MP's whose wealth insulates them from the consequences of their decisions!

Do I really have to spell everything out for you as if you were six years old?

 

THERE WAS NO DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT ON WHETHER LEAVING THE EU WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

 

In a representative democracy (e.g. the UK) we pay MPs to make the big decisions on our behalf. We accept that they have more time and resources to make an informed decision. Obviously they don't always get it right, but that's the theory.

 

There, is that clear now?

 

Meanwhile, further questions are being asked about the whole legitimacy of the referendum. The main Leave campaign stands accused of passing money on to other Leave-supporting organisations and not declaring it as an expense, thereby circumventing the spending limit. If that is shown to be illegal, the case for quashing the result will be very strong. If it is found to be legal, the law isn't worth the vellum it's written on.

 

https://infacts.org/vote-leave-spending-cas...endum-validity/

Do I really have to spell everything out for you as if you were six years old?

 

Of course not, but you still feel the need to patronize me by doing so. :(

 

THERE WAS NO DEBATE IN PARLIAMENT ON WHETHER LEAVING THE EU WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

 

In a representative democracy (e.g. the UK) we pay MPs to make the big decisions on our behalf. We accept that they have more time and resources to make an informed decision. Obviously they don't always get it right, but that's the theory.

 

There, is that clear now?

A parliamentary debate was not required, as the decision was delegated to the electorate, and thoroughly discussed during the campaign.

 

Meanwhile, further questions are being asked about the whole legitimacy of the referendum. The main Leave campaign stands accused of passing money on to other Leave-supporting organisations and not declaring it as an expense, thereby circumventing the spending limit. If that is shown to be illegal, the case for quashing the result will be very strong. If it is found to be legal, the law isn't worth the vellum it's written on.

 

https://infacts.org/vote-leave-spending-cas...endum-validity/

 

Yet another straw being clutched at.

Of course not, but you still feel the need to patronize me by doing so. :(

 

A parliamentary debate was not required, as the decision was delegated to the electorate, and thoroughly discussed during the campaign.

Yet another straw being clutched at.

OK, so you have made it clear that you think it was perfectly acceptable for the Leave campaign to tell blatant lies. You are now suggesting that it doesn't matter that they may have broken the law. Is there anything you would have found unacceptable?

OK, so you have made it clear that you think it was perfectly acceptable for the Leave campaign to tell blatant lies. You are now suggesting that it doesn't matter that they may have broken the law. Is there anything you would have found unacceptable?

 

If I may paraphrase Popchartfreak : 'This claim has no source, it's largely just opinion based on a few spurious claims and assumptions skewed towards preconceived "defend Remain at all costs" attitudes.' ;)

What really puzzles me is why Remainers here seem so determined to point out the flaws in the campaign, as if that could change the result. :unsure:

 

The *only* thing that can render a result invalid is evidence of vote fraud on a massive scale that could be proven in court - and I haven't heard such a claim made by even the most ardent of Remainers.

 

Going back to the claim of illegitimate expenses - even when such claims have been proven in the past, I don't know of any case where it has been deemed sufficient reason to overturn a result - the most that happens is that fines get handed out.

 

PS, I found this document about challenging election results - I assume it would apply to referenda too. :unsure:

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__da...s-in-the-UK.pdf

Edited by vidcapper

What really puzzles me is why Remainers here seem so determined to point out the flaws in the campaign, as if that could change the result. :unsure:

 

The *only* thing that can render a result invalid is evidence of vote fraud on a massive scale that could be proven in court - and I haven't heard such a claim made by even the most ardent of Remainers.

 

Going back to the claim of illegitimate expenses - even when such claims have been proven in the past, I don't know of any case where it has been deemed sufficient reason to overturn a result - the most that happens is that fines get handed out.

 

PS, I found this document about challenging election results - I assume it would apply to referenda too. :unsure:

 

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__da...s-in-the-UK.pdf

Which makes electoral law appear ridiculous. Someone one with deep enough pockets can manipulate an election result with relative impunity.

 

Election results have been quashed in the past - at a local and national level.

 

The claims of overspending by the Leave campaign have been rumbling for months. In particular, one rather obscure Leave campaigner appears suddenly to have found himself with hundreds of thousands of pounds to spend.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.