Well not really though was it? Farage said so himself the night of the vote.

 

 

"The Republic of Ireland has voted overwhelmingly to overturn the abortion ban by 66.4% to 33.6%" and also with EVERY area, except one in the north-west, voting the same way.

 

Now THAT is how you win a referendum not on a split vote.

Nothing that hasn't already been replied to, many times.

 

You have never commented on those points in item 6. Feel free....

Precisely - PCF can win all the arguments he wants - the only one that matters was won on 23/6/2016.

yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn.

 

A man with no arguments, so resorting to the one thing you can actually point to without fear of contradiction.

 

they barely won, BTW, and only won by lying through their crooked little teeth.

 

I agree with Nigel farage. It's not a clear enough win to settle the argument once and for all as Queefy just reminded you.

But the main flaw in a system of representative democracy is that if all major parties want something, but the voters want the opposite, then voters are basically f*cked.

If all major parties want one thing and the electorate are split almost 50-50, don't you think there's just a possibility that the people who are paid to look at the facts, weigh up the pros and cons and come to a conclusion might just be right?

 

Thanks to a constant stream of anti-EU stories in certain sections of the press over several decades, many people are prepared to blame the EI for almost anything. Even clear evidence that they are wrong seems to make no difference.

 

As an example, an acquaintance has reported a conversation with friend who insisted that Sunday trading had been imposed on us by the EU, This person was a regular visitor to Germany where very few shops are allowed to open on Sunday. Yet they still insisted that the EU had imposed Sunday trading on the UK. They still wouldn't change their mind when they were shown clear evidence that Sunday trading laws were a mater for individual states.

 

Of course there is ignorance on both sides. It seems likely that some people were swayed by their perception of whether we would still be allowed to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest. I have no idea which side benefited more form that misconception. However, the participation of countries such as Russia and Azerbaijan - not to mention Australia - should have made it pretty obvious that the EU and Eurovision were two different things.

If all major parties want one thing and the electorate are split almost 50-50, don't you think there's just a possibility that the people who are paid to look at the facts, weigh up the pros and cons and come to a conclusion might just be right?

 

Agreed - which is why I fully supported Ed Miliband's position of having no referendum in the first place. It was divisive and sought primarily only to settle a petty debate (still ongoing) within the Conservative party and prevent the rise of the UK Independence Party... the latter of which succeeded anyway. Had we NOT voted for 'Dodgy Dave' in 2015 the world could be a lot more different compared to the coalition of chaos we now have.

 

Thanks to a constant stream of anti-EU stories in certain sections of the press over several decades, many people are prepared to blame the EI for almost anything. Even clear evidence that they are wrong seems to make no difference.

 

Whilst an element of this is true, the failure of post-2004 immigration from the EU combined with the economic crash of 2007/08 and subsequent austerity measures leaving ordinary people feeling left behind was a much bigger factor.

 

Of course there is ignorance on both sides. It seems likely that some people were swayed by their perception of whether we would still be allowed to compete in the Eurovision Song Contest. I have no idea which side benefited more form that misconception. However, the participation of countries such as Russia and Azerbaijan - not to mention Australia - should have made it pretty obvious that the EU and Eurovision were two different things.

 

and Morocco in 1980!

Edited May 27, 20187 yr by Doctor Blind

Whilst an element of this is true, the failure of post-2004 immigration from the EU combined with the economic crash of 2007/08 and subsequent austerity measures leaving ordinary people feeling left behind was a much bigger factor.

Labour made a bug mistake over the 2004 expansion. They made an estimate of the number of people from the new member states who would come to the UK based on all existing members allowing free movement from day one. That assumption proved to be wrong; all other members exercised their right to restrict free movement for the first few years.

 

When their assumption was proved to be wrong, they had two main choices. They could have chosen to apply the restrictions themselves, or they could have revised their estimate and extolled the virtues of free movement. They did neither, meaning that their unrevised estimate ended up being very wrong and their opponents were given an open goal.

6. You didn't respond to my assertion that you were operating Project Fear about civil unrest by Leavers. You didn't respond to my suggestion that you are saying they are more likely, in your Project fear scenario, to carrty out illegal action than the people who have had their rights to be a European Citizen removed. Leavers have lost no rights they didn't want to get rid of. In the real world Remainers should be the ones causing civil unrest. They aren't. So unless you are saying Leavers are a bit thick and unrily your logic is entirely flawed. As usual. Just Project fear. You also don't say that you would be happy to see them shot for breaking the law in such a hypothetical case as you undoubtedly would if Remainers started protesting in civil unrest, and as you do with thieves.

 

You have never commented on those points in item 6. Feel free....

 

You may regret asking. :P

 

Any Remainers who took part in civil unrest would be seen as defying the referendum result, and therefore could not claim the moral high ground.

 

You do so love to erroneously extrapolate my statements into non-equivalent scenarios, e.g. comparing matters of personal self-defense against state run law & order.

 

yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwnnnnnn.

 

A man with no arguments, so resorting to the one thing you can actually point to without fear of contradiction.

 

they barely won, BTW, and only won by lying through their crooked little teeth.

 

I agree with Nigel farage. It's not a clear enough win to settle the argument once and for all as Queefy just reminded you.

u

 

You not accepting my arguments is *not* the same as my having no arguments.

 

I don't accept that the campaign changed the result. If Leave had advanced by 5% during the campaign you might have had a case - but in reality there was no significant swing in opinion during the campaign.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...ship_referendum

 

If all major parties want one thing and the electorate are split almost 50-50, don't you think there's just a possibility that the people who are paid to look at the facts, weigh up the pros and cons and come to a conclusion might just be right?

 

Thanks to a constant stream of anti-EU stories in certain sections of the press over several decades, many people are prepared to blame the EI for almost anything. Even clear evidence that they are wrong seems to make no difference.

 

About a 50/50 chance, maybe. ;) But if the people want something enough, IMO governments should be duty-bound to get it done regardless of their personal feelings.

 

Agreed - which is why I fully supported Ed Miliband's position of having no referendum in the first place. It was divisive and sought primarily only to settle a petty debate (still ongoing) within the Conservative party and prevent the rise of the UK Independence Party... the latter of which succeeded anyway.

 

Surely you realise that sweeping a problem under the carpet, as the Europhiles had done for decades, doesn't make it go away? The Remainers deeply cynical policy seemed to be : 'If we can avoid this problem for long enough, our opponents will drop dead'.

And the Brexiters seem to be, if we can get the old people to vote, we can force the youth to accept this vote for a generation, even when the voters who voted for it are dead.

 

I hope there's a second vote and we win by 52% and then force you all into a Hard Remain - Euro and all. Because, hey, we 'won' a split vote, ey!

You may regret asking. :P

 

Any Remainers who took part in civil unrest would be seen as defying the referendum result, and therefore could not claim the moral high ground.

 

You do so love to erroneously extrapolate my statements into non-equivalent scenarios, e.g. comparing matters of personal self-defense against state run law & order.

 

u

 

You not accepting my arguments is *not* the same as my having no arguments.

 

I don't accept that the campaign changed the result. If Leave had advanced by 5% during the campaign you might have had a case - but in reality there was no significant swing in opinion during the campaign.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polli...ship_referendum

About a 50/50 chance, maybe. ;) But if the people want something enough, IMO governments should be duty-bound to get it done regardless of their personal feelings.

Surely you realise that sweeping a problem under the carpet, as the Europhiles had done for decades, doesn't make it go away? The Remainers deeply cynical policy seemed to be : 'If we can avoid this problem for long enough, our opponents will drop dead'.

 

I never regret asking anything because I'm pretty sure I can back up my beliefs quite easily using reason.

 

No you are saying it's OK to ignore the law if you are on the side of a party that won a very vague referendum wirth no concrete promises on anything in particular and claims all overt the place during the referendum about what it meant, but not OK if you are outvoted by a whisker. What you should be saying is that both hypothetical realities are against the law and should be punished as such, and you should trust the British Constitution and Parliament to deliver the best outcome they can without destroying the country. That IS, after all, what you claimed you wanted. There was no vote about changing the British constitution or method of election.

 

Threats of public unrest to get your way is a sign you have lost any moral highground you think you had.

 

Your campaign argument is in error. All that means is that the lies were spread out over a concerted period and stayed stable. Though I'm sure there are other polls showing the opposite. I mean, I distinctly recall polls saying Remain would win, then Leave would win, then Nigel farage thinking Remain had won and declaring it's noy the End Of The Matter, no sirree Bob.

 

The government is under no obligation to carry out inhuman knee-jerk reaction policies to whatever somne right-wing fascist rag has drummed up in it's pages. They are elected to represent us because it's impossible to mediate every person on every issue, and that would just be insane anyway, pereverting issues by phrasing questions in as avague and irresponsible way as possible.

 

A bit like the referendum.

 

RE: Dr Blind's comment: Surely you see the logic that the blame is the Tory party for not sorting out what it wanted ahead of a referendum and campaigning on that as official policy rather than subject the country to the same malicious and damaging situation? People had the choice of voting for UKIP and didn't, because they had no policies and were a bunch of nutters, some of them racist, sexist and homophobic nutters. That should illustrate to you time and again then there is wide breadth of opinion on what Brexit means amongst the narrow majority that has possibly now become the narrow minority.

 

PS if the policy of waiting for Brexiters to drop dead is a flawed policy what do you care? Either it's fake news and you have nothing to worry about, or it's true and demographic changes means another referendum should be a final say to confirm the country hasnt changed it's mind on the final deal. Seems a piece of piss to me, but then I believe in democracy based on truth.

No you are saying it's OK to ignore the law if you are on the side of a party that won a very vague referendum wirth no concrete promises on anything in particular and claims all overt the place during the referendum about what it meant, but not OK if you are outvoted by a whisker. What you should be saying is that both hypothetical realities are against the law and should be punished as such, and you should trust the British Constitution and Parliament to deliver the best outcome they can without destroying the country. That IS, after all, what you claimed you wanted.

 

There was no vote about changing the British constitution or method of election.

 

Don't get me started on that last part. :)

 

Threats of public unrest to get your way is a sign you have lost any moral highground you think you had.

Then what does that say about any gov't that cancels the result of a vote they don't like - we impose sanctions on gov'ts who do that...

 

Your campaign argument is in error. All that means is that the lies were spread out over a concerted period and stayed stable. Though I'm sure there are other polls showing the opposite. I mean, I distinctly recall polls saying Remain would win, then Leave would win, then Nigel farage thinking Remain had won and declaring it's noy the End Of The Matter, no sirree Bob.

 

So why single out the campaign as the decisive event? You know as well as I do that Euroscepticism has been around for ages, but with no democratic outlet until 2 years ago.

 

The government is under no obligation to carry out inhuman knee-jerk reaction policies to whatever somne right-wing fascist rag has drummed up in it's pages. They are elected to represent us because it's impossible to mediate every person on every issue, and that would just be insane anyway, pereverting issues by phrasing questions in as avague and irresponsible way as possible.

But the gov't *chose* to call a referendum, so once thay did so, they had to be prepared for the possible consequences.

 

People had the choice of voting for UKIP and didn't, because they had no policies and were a bunch of nutters, some of them racist, sexist and homophobic nutters.

 

While there is some truth in your description, the main reason why they didn't get more votes than they did was FPTP - the proof of that was in the Euroelections in which they did far better.

 

 

 

It was an advisory poll, nothing more. An opinion, nothing more.

 

If you think a binary vote on accepting or rejecting the deal falls well short of giving an opinion, then why don't you also accept a binary referendum with a simplistic question ALSO fails to give a clear indication of what anyone wants especially as one side promised everything to everyone and lied?

It was an advisory poll, nothing more. An opinion, nothing more.

 

If you think a binary vote on accepting or rejecting the deal falls well short of giving an opinion, then why don't you also accept a binary referendum with a simplistic question ALSO fails to give a clear indication of what anyone wants especially as one side promised everything to everyone and lied?

 

OH come on - if it was some 3rd world gov't coming up with 'it was only advisory, so we can ignore it' bullshit, we'd never accept it...

Then what does that say about any gov't that cancels the result of a vote they don't like - we impose sanctions on gov'ts who do that...

So why single out the campaign as the decisive event? You know as well as I do that Euroscepticism has been around for ages, but with no democratic outlet until 2 years ago.

 

But the gov't *chose* to call a referendum, so once thay did so, they had to be prepared for the possible consequences.

While there is some truth in your description, the main reason why they didn't get more votes than they did was FPTP - the proof of that was in the Euroelections in which they did far better.

 

since when does this government impose sanctions!? You can poison British citizens, hide dirty money and all sorts and they still dont bat an eyelid, just words...

 

Who said anything about cancelling the result of a vote?

 

The campaign was when most people made their final decision, right up to the last day.

 

Cameron (not the government) made the decision to try and undercut UKIP hacking into Tory votes and it backfired spectacularly cos he expected to win comfortably.

 

UKIP did very well in European elections, as nobody bothers to vote in them except the haters. Ironic!

Who said anything about cancelling the result of a vote?

 

The campaign was when most people made their final decision, right up to the last day.

 

Cameron (not the government) made the decision to try and undercut UKIP hacking into Tory votes and it backfired spectacularly cos he expected to win comfortably.

 

UKIP did very well in European elections, as nobody bothers to vote in them except the haters. Ironic!

 

If you don't like 'cancelling' I could point you to a list of synonyms meaning virtually the same thing...

 

Yes, but the point is - since the beginning to end polls moved very little, so the campaign had little overall effect.

 

Well we agree on this, at least - but you have to wonder what led him to underestimate Euroscepticism so significantly? :unsure:

 

I wouldn't say 'haters' as such, just those with more interest in politics than average.

Surely you realise that sweeping a problem under the carpet, as the Europhiles had done for decades, doesn't make it go away? The Remainers deeply cynical policy seemed to be : 'If we can avoid this problem for long enough, our opponents will drop dead'.

 

Totally get that- but the underlying problems that informed much of the leave vote still won't be resolved when we leave, if anything I think they will get worse.. I expect had there been a narrow remain vote Cameron would have conceded that things needed to change and that he was listening. Whether he actually did anything or not, well... we are in the land of hypothetical here but I still have faith that those in government would have seen that strong leave vote as a big warning that something BIG needs to happen to address increasing inequality/insecure work/struggling households/failing public services etc.

If you don't like 'cancelling' I could point you to a list of synonyms meaning virtually the same thing...

 

Yes, but the point is - since the beginning to end polls moved very little, so the campaign had little overall effect.

 

Well we agree on this, at least - but you have to wonder what led him to underestimate Euroscepticism so significantly? :unsure:

 

I wouldn't say 'haters' as such, just those with more interest in politics than average.

 

1. You REALLY don't get the concept of democracy at ALL do you?

 

2. That is a lie. If the campaign had no effect then there would have been no need to use illegal money to launch last minute voter targeting online, no need to lie to the cameras non-stop for weeks on end. YOUR opinion, because it is convenient to you to hold it, is that the campaign had no effect. The numbers changed throughout so the best you can claim is that opinion wavered and settled down to be similar at the end of the campaign as at the beginning. I mean Farage was shitting bricks when Jo Cox was murdered, petrified there would be a sympathy vote. How soon you forget.....

 

 

3. Cameron is an egotistical selfish prick. I think that covers it....

 

4. I would say racist haters. Not all, but some. I definitely know lots of folk that way inclined, and the list of UKIP leaders who had to resign due to their comments, fights, and general nuttiness before disintegrating suggests they weren't the most balanced or fair people in the world.....

 

Having an interest in politics isn't necessarily the same thing as hating some sections of the community with vitriol. Remember all those attacks on non-whites after the result? Thought not. Just a reminder for you.

Totally get that- but the underlying problems that informed much of the leave vote still won't be resolved when we leave, if anything I think they will get worse.. I expect had there been a narrow remain vote Cameron would have conceded that things needed to change and that he was listening. Whether he actually did anything or not, well... we are in the land of hypothetical here but I still have faith that those in government would have seen that strong leave vote as a big warning that something BIG needs to happen to address increasing inequality/insecure work/struggling households/failing public services etc.

 

Yeah, but...

 

all those promises on Downing Street by T. May have empty ones. She's backtracked on almost everything.

 

The Brexiteers dont want a fairer society, they want a divided society where the rich have the power and the poor have to go begging for zero hour contracts. Free from EU legislation on workers rights they can bide thier time and pick and choose which ones to kill off - assuming they dont grant themselves the Henry powers to do what they like behind closed doors and ignore Parliament, as the Tories demanded until the British Legal system (THE TRAITORS) ruled otherwise.

 

They could solve the housing crisis. havent.

 

They could bring in decent minimum wages. They haven't (that was the Libdems policy that they stole). We have lost £900 per household since the referendum (according to the Governor, a Tory hireling) and they do nothing except plan to pursue policies guaranteed to make us even worse off.

 

The NHS is being starved. They even promised they would fund it on the side of a bus, and 2 years on they still havent, and people are dying earlier, the death rate is climbing, life expectancy is not rising for the first time in decades. If they eventually do anything it will be down the NHS boss making political points instead of shutting up like a nice hireling and accepting the ongoing cuts. And the best he can achieve is to get back the levels of annual rises needed to keep pace with inflation, never mind the rising ageing population.

 

In summary: I don't share your optimism about Tories, sorry about that.

all those promises on Downing Street by T. May have empty ones. She's backtracked on almost everything.

 

Up until 8 June 2017 I'd agree with you, but since then they've had to act because failing to do so - thanks to demographics - may inevitably lead to political oblivion. I'd don't have faith in them altruistically changing things for the better, but only when their hand is forced, and to not do so would seriously threaten their grip on power.

Edited May 29, 20187 yr by Doctor Blind

Up until 8 June 2017 I'd agree with you, but since then they've had to act because failing to do so - thanks to demographics - may inevitably lead to political oblivion. I'd don't have faith in them altruistically changing things for the better, but only when their hand is forced, and to not do so would seriously threaten their grip on power.

But what have they actually done? Tye've had nearly a year since the election and May has been PM for nearly two years. In the words of one of her predecessors "Fine words butter no parsnips".

Well not a lot really because of the Brexit negotiations taking up a lot of time. Point taken!