www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/john-redwood-brexit_uk_5a08cb50e4b0e37d2f3833c4/

 

Thanks for that.

 

One thing I didn't realise is that Frances Coppola is an American, so why should I give him the same credence as someone who lives here and is directly affected by what the EU does?

Thanks for that.

 

One thing I didn't realise is that Frances Coppola is an American, so why should I give him the same credence as someone who lives here and is directly affected by what the EU does?

 

as long as you give no credence to Nigel Farage sticking his oar into EU countries that he has no business in, and American elections that he has no business sticking his nose into, then you can claim consistency. Please confirm that you agree he has no right to an opinion on what lying politicians in other countries say.

 

PS John Redwood is still a lying two-faced git, regardless of who is reporting on it, because he says one thing and does another thing entirely. That's called hypocrisy. Why should anyone pay attention to a lying hypocrite?

as long as you give no credence to Nigel Farage sticking his oar into EU countries that he has no business in, and American elections that he has no business sticking his nose into, then you can claim consistency. Please confirm that you agree he has no right to an opinion on what lying politicians in other countries say.

 

Fine.

The Australian non-binding postal ref with 70% turnout and 61% in favour and ALL STATES voting yes is how to win a referendum and THEN say the MAJORITY (not the people) have spoken.

The Australian non-binding postal ref with 70% turnout and 61% in favour and ALL STATES voting yes is how to win a referendum and THEN say the MAJORITY (not the people) have spoken.

 

What was the referendum about?

 

As for turnout, voting is compulsory in Australia, so anything that far below 100% is hardly an endorsement of the issue (whatever it was).

Edited November 15, 20177 yr by vidcapper

Equal marriage.

 

It should never have been up for a vote in the first place, civil rights, and one of a minority too, and was non-binding and someone would refuse to vote on an issue that does not personally affecy them/ non binding, hence the turnout.

Equal marriage.

 

For gays, I assume you mean?

Equal marriage, yes.

What was the referendum about?

 

As for turnout, voting is compulsory in Australia, so anything that far below 100% is hardly an endorsement of the issue (whatever it was).

It wasn't conducted under the same rules. It was a postal vote and was purely advisory. It only happened because the government were too scared just to go ahead and introduce equal marriage. After all, there was no requirement for a referendum of any kind.

It wasn't conducted under the same rules. It was a postal vote and was purely advisory. It only happened because the government were too scared just to go ahead and introduce equal marriage. After all, there was no requirement for a referendum of any kind.

 

Didn't California hold a referendum on gay marriage, but when the result went against, the courts struck down the result?

Didn't California hold a referendum on gay marriage, but when the result went against, the courts struck down the result?

 

presumably on the grounds (if true) that it went against "all men are created equal" American constitution....

 

(brackets, except the descendants of Black slaves, Muslims, homos, trannies and women)

Didn't California hold a referendum on gay marriage, but when the result went against, the courts struck down the result?

 

Civil rights, esp of minorities, should never be up for public vote. The result was unconstitutional.

But many of the major markets are outside the EU - especially the biggest of all...

Dunno if this is wilful ignorance or blind stupidity.

 

Financial Services that deal with the US market are based in the US. New York is a massive financial centre, bigger than London. Hong Kong and Singapore rule the Asian financial trade. London is the home of European trade because it has access to the EU capital markets through the 4 pillars of the EU aka the fundamental freedoms which allows for the free movement of capital. Being outside the single market limits the ability of a business to trade in these markets. Thus a financial services business will need to relocate part of its business back into the Eurozone to keep that access.

 

Over time we will see the decline of London as a financial hub due to the loss of this access. If Paris, Madrid or Frankfurt markets reform their rules to become as friendly as London is for companies to list then they will easily overtake London in the next 10-15 years

For gays, I assume you mean?

What else would it mean?

 

Nice bi-erasure there

 

It wasn't conducted under the same rules. It was a postal vote and was purely advisory. It only happened because the government were too scared just to go ahead and introduce equal marriage. After all, there was no requirement for a referendum of any kind.

Government were scared of their own MPs, not the electorate who have been in favour for years. f*** even bloody Queensland only returned a no vote in 3 of its seats.

What else would it mean?

 

I didn't know, that's why I asked!

 

Nice bi-erasure there

Did you just make up a word? :rolleyes:

 

Government were scared of their own MPs, not the electorate who have been in favour for years. f*** even bloody Queensland only returned a no vote in 3 of its seats.

 

IF the gov't knew the people were in favour, then surely the only reason to hold a referendum was just to shut up opponents who claimed otherwise?

 

No I didn’t not just make up a word.

 

Polls for years had consistently shown support with the only barrier being the personal beliefs of the representatives in parliament. Many of the LNP MPs are quite firmly on the hardcore deep-south evangelical “christian” republican end of the political spectrum. Many LNP politicians vowed before the legislation passed through parliament to vote No regardless of what the Australian people said because it was a non-binding referendum and they refused to vote against their bigoted values. The other issue many had is that the anti-marriage equality lobby in Australia is rather vocal and vicious. There was concern this would subject LGBT people to unnecessary harm and they were right. It was not a particularly civil campaign.

 

This whole thing could have been avoided had the LNP allowed it’s party a “conscious vote” on the issue but when Tony Abbott was chief bigot he refused because he was scared it would succeed and he didn’t want that. So he committed his party to supporting a plebiscite years in the future instead. When Malcom Turnbull seized power he didn’t change party politics policy despite being in favour of marriage equality.

 

An LNP politician from the no side put forward a bill that gave the right to marry in return from absolutely gutting discrimination protections so they’re still quite firmly against treating the LGBT community like people

This whole thing could have been avoided had the LNP allowed it’s party a “conscious vote”

on the issue

 

Did you mean 'conscience' vote?

Not everyone sees gloom & doom iro Brexit.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/879...fter-EU-divorce

...and here is the response from most respected corners to that one (and only one) report financed by people who stand to gain from Brexit (or else they are just hopeless at their job in using very biased assumptions to come to conclusions that they are being paid to come to - this is known as "hiring consultants" and politicians do it all the time):

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...f-a7691271.html

...and here is the response from most respected corners to that one (and only one) report financed by people who stand to gain from Brexit (or else they are just hopeless at their job in using very biased assumptions to come to conclusions that they are being paid to come to - this is known as "hiring consultants" and politicians do it all the time):

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business...f-a7691271.html

 

I guess we'll just have to wait to see which of us can say 'told you so' then. ;)

 

Either way though, I would hope that even the most ardent Remainers wouldn't want to see Britain fail to prosper after Brexit?