Through the media propaganda machine, gerrymandering and an antiquated system and through a billion pounds bribe to Northern Ireland. Brexit, a flimsy majority and article 50 brought up by MAD MAY HERSELF AND NOT PARLIAMENT, is part of this coup.

 

Nothing. But doesn't matter. The rest of the population has also been left apathetic by neoliberal plutocrats ruining democracy. Those who are interested will use their votes. It doesn't matter if it enfranchises 1, 1000 or a million. What matters is they have the right.

 

What gerrymandering? There's been no significant change to the system for a long time.

 

The so called 'bribe' happened *after* the election, and therefore cannot have affected the result. I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Labour could not have formed a gov't without the help of the DUP either, and they would also have had to offer bribes to every smaller party, not just one...

What gerrymandering? There's been no significant change to the system for a long time.

 

The so called 'bribe' happened *after* the election, and therefore cannot have affected the result. I guess it hasn't occurred to you that Labour could not have formed a gov't without the help of the DUP either, and they would also have had to offer bribes to every smaller party, not just one...

 

There you go again justifying something by invoking a hypothetical worse situation. Habit is SO difficult to break...

There you go again justifying something by invoking a hypothetical worse situation.

 

I'm surprised to hear to admit that a Labour lead minority coalition would be worse then a Tory one... ;)

 

Seriously though, my comment was mainly directed at those like Mr 'Queef' who appear to see anything less than an overall Tory majority, as depriving them of the authority to govern, regardless of how many fewer seats their main opponents won.

I'm surprised to hear to admit that a Labour lead minority coalition would be worse then a Tory one... ;)

 

Seriously though, my comment was mainly directed at those like Mr 'Queef' who appear to see anything less than an overall Tory majority, as depriving them of the authority to govern, regardless of how many fewer seats their main opponents won.

 

You were making the hypothetical worse alternative a fake reality not me.

 

The fact is, they bought off their government majority and are now being blackmailed by it. That is no authority. The coalition was a coalition, so that had authority. Fairly simple difference. Your hypothetical reality assumes that the DUP would also have been bought off when Corbyn's sympathies have always been anti-DUP and that he would have been incapable of creating a parliamentary coalition with everyone else except Tories and DUP, which is a much more likely scenario were the Labour/Tory seats numbers reversed.

 

AS I keep saying, making stuff up when you can't argue any other way but still want to justify something that is fact.

You were making the hypothetical worse alternative a fake reality not me.

 

The fact is, they bought off their government majority and are now being blackmailed by it. That is no authority. The coalition was a coalition, so that had authority. Fairly simple difference. Your hypothetical reality assumes that the DUP would also have been bought off when Corbyn's sympathies have always been anti-DUP and that he would have been incapable of creating a parliamentary coalition with everyone else except Tories and DUP, which is a much more likely scenario were the Labour/Tory seats numbers reversed.

 

If the numbers were revered, Labour wouldn't have needed the DUP - the SNP, PC or LD might have been enough - however my scenario was based on the 2017 number of seats, as follows

 

Tories 318

 

Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + PC 4 +2 others = 315

 

Therefore they'd need DUP support (as SF don't take up their HoC seats)

 

Hope that clarifies my scenario?

 

***********************

 

Going off at a complete tangent - has anyone here worked out what name I go under for Daily Mail comments - clue : it's not vidcapper ;)

Edited June 22, 20187 yr by vidcapper

If the numbers were revered, Labour wouldn't have needed the DUP - the SNP, PC or LD might have been enough - however my scenario was based on the 2017 number of seats, as follows

 

Tories 318

 

Lab 262 + SNP 35 + LD 12 + PC 4 +2 others = 315

 

Therefore they'd need DUP support (as SF don't take up their HoC seats)

 

Hope that clarifies my scenario?

 

***********************

 

Going off at a complete tangent - has anyone here worked out what name I go under for Daily Mail comments - clue : it's not vidcapper ;)

 

 

So, you're claiming something which could theoretically have taken place but didn't as proof that Labour would have been just as guilty of buying votes to gain power. Except that they didn't. Which makes your argument nonsense.

 

Frank? Frank's a nice name....

So, you're claiming something which could theoretically have taken place but didn't as proof that Labour would have been just as guilty of buying votes to gain power. Except that they didn't. Which makes your argument nonsense.

 

Not necessarily -had the Tories been unable to persuade the DUP to play ball, it would then have been up to Labour to try & form a gov't instead.

 

Frank? Frank's a nice name....

 

Unfortunately, the Mail's Comments section are too moderated for me to be really frank. ;)

 

Were you the one on the DM site to suggest that everyone on yesterday's march should be charged with treason?

By that logic, ALL the DailyMailers should have been charged with treason the second they opened their thick brainwashed gobs about Brexit, seeing as the 70s produced an IN vote with a MASSIVE country-wide majority.

Were you the one on the DM site to suggest that everyone on yesterday's march should be charged with treason?

 

I'm sure you'll be most disappointed to find out that *wasn't* me. ;)

 

By that logic, ALL the DailyMailers should have been charged with treason the second they opened their thick brainwashed gobs about Brexit, seeing as the 70s produced an IN vote with a MASSIVE country-wide majority.

 

1. The EEC then was a far different, and less intrusive organisation than the EU now.

 

2. If a 41yo referendum result should be be respected, then why not a 2yo one? Or perhaps it could be argued that - if a 34% margin should be respected for 41 years, then a 4% one should be respected for 4/34 * 41 years = ~4 years?

Fine. Then a second people's vote is needed, which it is, unless we just cancel this farce, under that maths.

I'm sure you'll be most disappointed to find out that *wasn't* me. ;)

1. The EEC then was a far different, and less intrusive organisation than the EU now.

 

2. If a 41yo referendum result should be be respected, then why not a 2yo one? Or perhaps it could be argued that - if a 34% margin should be respected for 41 years, then a 4% one should be respected for 4/34 * 41 years = ~4 years?

 

Disappointed? Not at all I expect. Surprised, maybe :P

 

The EEC referendum was debated calmly and honestly and people knew what they were voting for, it was factual. Our governments variously agreed through our Parliament to every change since then, democratically.

 

The 2016 referendum wasn't based on facts, it was hyperbole and lies and assumptions and guesses. Completely different to the first one. Giving people a final say on FACTS is not anti-democratic given the utterly undemocratic bullshit that was claimed in the 2016 referendum. That Brexiters don't see that is not surprising because they had to lie through their teeth to get their own way.

Fine. Then a second people's vote is needed, which it is, unless we just cancel this farce, under that maths.

 

Of course, that 4 years won't be until after the current process is complete...

Disappointed? Not at all I expect. Surprised, maybe :P

 

The EEC referendum was debated calmly and honestly and people knew what they were voting for, it was factual. Our governments variously agreed through our Parliament to every change since then, democratically.

 

And therein lies a major part of the problem - our governments may have agreed the changes, but *voters* were not given a say on it. That was certainly one of the main reasons I become a Eurosceptic.

 

[

The 2016 referendum wasn't based on facts, it was hyperbole and lies and assumptions and guesses. Completely different to the first one. Giving people a final say on FACTS is not anti-democratic given the utterly undemocratic bullshit that was claimed in the 2016 referendum. That Brexiters don't see that is not surprising because they had to lie through their teeth to get their own way.

 

But what is to stop a follow-up referendum turning into exactly the same sort of slanging match? Any attempt to regulate the campaign would play right into Leave's hands - they would certainly make a big issue of 'ignoring the democratic result' of the 2016 vote.

 

But that would be a fallacious argument as the vote was 50/50 with two nations of four voting the opposite way? It was an advisory poll with no safeguards such as a 3 nation lock or 66% because it was advisory and non-binding. Such referenda have been ignored in other countries before on such tiny winning margins, sooo

But that would be a fallacious argument as the vote was 50/50 with two nations of four voting the opposite way? It was an advisory poll with no safeguards such as a 3 nation lock or 66% because it was advisory and non-binding. Such referenda have been ignored in other countries before on such tiny winning margins, sooo

 

And people claim *my* arguments are repetitive... :rolleyes:

Repetitive Michael may be, but at least it's factual

Repetitive Michael may be, but at least it's factual

 

Queef's real name is Michael?

And therein lies a major part of the problem - our governments may have agreed the changes, but *voters* were not given a say on it. That was certainly one of the main reasons I become a Eurosceptic.

 

[

 

But what is to stop a follow-up referendum turning into exactly the same sort of slanging match? Any attempt to regulate the campaign would play right into Leave's hands - they would certainly make a big issue of 'ignoring the democratic result' of the 2016 vote.

 

...and I keep saying, if the agreement is in print for all to see, there can be no lies. You can make claims that such and such a paragraph gives the EU too much power, or such & such will make border crossings easy or hard, or bananas are agreed to be bendy, or taxes are agreed to be 13% on trade or zero%, and you can say you agree or disagree with bits, but you have a total agreement which you either largely agree with or don't. Vote accordingly. No lies. BY definition, unless it's a Hard Brexit with NO Deal - if that's the best solution the government offers us after 3 or 4 years of negotiation and assurances that we would have a fab deal, then it's really very simple. We either leave or stay as we are. If they DO have a deal, then by definition it must be better than No Deal Brexit because they have said they will opt ofr it if that's the best deal available, and so we can still analyse it, the various parts on it, and people have a final say. And that will be the absolute end of the matter for at least 30 years.

...and I keep saying, if the agreement is in print for all to see, there can be no lies. You can make claims that such and such a paragraph gives the EU too much power, or such & such will make border crossings easy or hard, or bananas are agreed to be bendy, or taxes are agreed to be 13% on trade or zero%, and you can say you agree or disagree with bits, but you have a total agreement which you either largely agree with or don't. Vote accordingly. No lies. BY definition, unless it's a Hard Brexit with NO Deal - if that's the best solution the government offers us after 3 or 4 years of negotiation and assurances that we would have a fab deal, then it's really very simple. We either leave or stay as we are. If they DO have a deal, then by definition it must be better than No Deal Brexit because they have said they will opt ofr it if that's the best deal available, and so we can still analyse it, the various parts on it, and people have a final say. And that will be the absolute end of the matter for at least 30 years.

 

But you are assume that all voters make choices as rationally as you or I... :teresa: