[Politics] Brexit

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Sorry I'm still not getting your argument. What is not to say we are put to a referendum (people's vote seems to be the in quote) a few years down the line? I can't remember anyone saying it isn't viable. However, for now, the majority have made a decision, and with some 35 million people voting, the biggest vote show in history, MPs have a duty to follow out the people's desire.

I really don't think I could have said it any clearer. Cameron made a mistake by making it 50%+1. That is basic common sense if you want to avoid splitting the people. I'd say exactly the same it if had been 52/48 Remain.

birthofanorange · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
I really don't think I could have said it any clearer. Cameron made a mistake by making it 50%+1. That is basic common sense if you want to avoid splitting the people. I'd say exactly the same it if had been 52/48 Remain.

Yes, Farage said the same, too.....back then.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
So 59-41 to leave would have been a legitimate loss for the winners. Utter garbage.

If the required margin was 60/40 and this was clear from the start, yes. 59 is less than 60. But it would send a strong signal to sort out the EU. Are you saying 52/48 is going well? I'd say it was working out utter garbage, wouldn't you?

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
I really don't think I could have said it any clearer. Cameron made a mistake by making it 50%+1. That is basic common sense if you want to avoid splitting the people. I'd say exactly the same it if had been 52/48 Remain.

And I don't think I could make it any clearer. First past the post won, like the Grand National if you like, Red Rum was first and the bookies paid out. It really is that simple. We were told this before the referendum and no-one complained then.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

birthofanorange said:
Yes, Farage said the same, too.....back then.

Shudder, but yes.

Guy Fawkes · Mar 24, 2019

Prettyboyshaw said:
Agreed on Cameron I think he over estimated the intelligence of the public these days...BUT a vote is a vote be it be 1 or 1m majority. Who to say you have to get 67% rather than 66? Politicians needed to sort the mess out rather than trying to get one up on each other.

Or simply the majority of remainers underestimated how many were wanting out and didn't see it as an issue and simply too dismissive of those wanting to leave (as they still seem to be now)

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
If the required margin was 60/40 and this was clear from the start, yes. 59 is less than 60. But it would send a strong signal to sort out the EU. Are you saying 52/48 is going well? I'd say it was working out utter garbage, wouldn't you?

What utter crap you type from your other country. A win is 1-0, first runner to the ticker, having the most hotels on a Monopoly board, having a full house in poker, etc.... do you understand winning?

birthofanorange · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
We were told this before the referendum and no-one complained then.

You were also told a lot of crap, too, but that didn't stop you. Luckily, time has revealed the implications of leaving in a more informed way, and the people are entitled to have a further say in it. That's democratic, not blindly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You can still say you 'won' though, if it makes you feel better, but I'm afraid the safety and economic future of the country you seem to hold dear, trumps your stubbornness.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
And I don't think I could make it any clearer. First past the post won, like the Grand National if you like, Red Rum was first and the bookies paid out. It really is that simple. We were told this before the referendum and no-one complained then.

Good grief, yes I know it was first past the post, and yes, I know Leave won. I'm not disputing any of that. I would be arguing the same if Remain had won by the same numbers, except there wouldn't have been a mess, just a lot of unhappy people. I'm simply saying it was a stupid way to have a binding referendum. This is, in effect, a constitutional change and it has long been concluded that a supermajority should be required for such major changes. It is normal practice.

Still, if you think that 50%+1 hasn't caused a mess in the UK, that's up to you (but I notice you haven't to tried to suggest that it hasn't made the UK a total joke)

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
What utter crap you type from your other country. A win is 1-0, first runner to the ticker, having the most hotels on a Monopoly board, having a full house in poker, etc.... do you understand winning?

I'm not sure you actually understand very much, you certainly can't grasp my fairly simple points that are neither pro nor anti-Brexit.

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

birthofanorange said:
You were also told a lot of crap, too, but that didn't stop you. Luckily, time has revealed the implications of leaving in a more informed way, and the people are entitled to have a further say in it. That's democratic, not blindly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You can still say you 'won' though, if it makes you feel better, but I'm afraid the safety and economic future of the country you seem to hold dear, trumps your stubbornness.

Why are you assuming I voted out? This is about democracy NOT which side I voted for. The implications towards democracy are huge and I'm disgusted with the 650 self centred, self preening, self money making scum that we vote in purely for their self interest. I couldn't care less if we stay in, get out, hard/soft Brexit... I'm past caring. I care about us, as common people, having a say and it not being carried out by the corrupt people that walk the halls of Westminster. I'm not even a political animal, so imagine how angry those that are will be when we find out we no longer live in a democracy and politicians sell us down the river for their own gains. The whole referendum is a loss loss situation.

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
I'm not sure you actually understand very much, you certainly can't grasp my fairly simple points that are neither pro nor anti-Brexit.

Patronising always helps in an argument, congratulations.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

BTW, I guess it was a good thing I didn't mention that Cameron should also have stipulated that a certain % of the population had to have voted for it to be considered valid. Say 60/40 and at least a 70% turnout. That is also fairly usual, but Nomad would have had a fit.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Patronising always helps in an argument, congratulations.

I'm simply stating the obvious. You've got your knickers in a twist but you don't even understand what I'm saying. That much is pretty obvious.

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
I'm simply stating the obvious. You've got your knickers in a twist but you don't even understand what I'm saying. That much is pretty obvious.

No, you really have nothing to argue so you patronise. You don't live in this country but still want to rip us for pensions and NHS and you want to tell us how we live our lives. You suggest that 41% v 59% is a defeat for those wanting out. How about the shoe being on the other foot and 60% have to vote to stay in? Would that work too? 41% vote out and remain lose. Your patronising is beyond the pale. Well done.

Guy Fawkes · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
Good grief, yes I know it was first past the post, and yes, I know Leave won. I'm not disputing any of that. I would be arguing the same if Remain had won by the same numbers, except there wouldn't have been a mess, just a lot of unhappy people. I'm simply saying it was a stupid way to have a binding referendum. This is, in effect, a constitutional change and it has long been concluded that a supermajority should be required for such major changes. It is normal practice.

Still, if you think that 50%+1 hasn't caused a mess in the UK, that's up to you (but I notice you haven't to tried to suggest that it hasn't made the UK a total joke)

Is the fact that leave won that's caused a mess, or those who were on the losing side kicking up such a fuss since they lost that's making it more of a mess than it should be...?

Sussex Nomad · Mar 24, 2019

Juan Albion said:
BTW, I guess it was a good thing I didn't mention that Cameron should also have stipulated that a certain % of the population had to have voted for it to be considered valid. Say 60/40 and at least a 70% turnout. That is also fairly usual, but Nomad would have had a fit.

Why don't you go further in order to be a winner from afar? Why not say 100% have to turn out, why not say 90% have to vote out, why not make sure the voters are totally stitched up? Do you live in North Korea? What a goon.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
No, you really have nothing to argue so you patronise. You don't live in this country but still want to rip us for pensions and NHS and you want to tell us how we live our lives. You suggest that 41% v 59% is a defeat for those wanting out. How about the shoe being on the other foot and 60% have to vote to stay in? Would that work too? 41% vote out and remain lose. Your patronising is beyond the pale. Well done.

YES! I've said this often enough, if the status quo was that we were outside the EU, it should take a supermajority to enter. ANYTHING CONSTITUTIONAL usually requires a supermajorty. This is NORMAL practice and the sensible way.

And I only want the pension I've paid into, thanks. But I'm not getting it. I'm going to get paid at the rate it was at when I left. So you are profiting from the interest on the payments I made. Enjoy.

Anyway, back to my question? Do you think your 50%+1 has made things work well? Still waiting for you to answer that.

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Why don't you go further in order to be a winner from afar? Why not say 100% have to turn out, why not say 90% have to vote out, why not make sure the voters are totally stitched up? Do you live in North Korea? What a goon.

I'm sorry basic politics escapes you and you can only resort to stupid comments.

BTW, the reason people stipulate minimum turnouts for major referendums is also fairly simple. If there was a major blizzard over half the country on the day of the vote and only the south got to vote in significant numbers, meaning a turnout of say 40%, and even 70% of that 40% voted one way or another, would you consider that a sensible basis to move forward on? Even if your side lost?

Juan Albion · Mar 24, 2019

Sussex Nomad said:
Why don't you go further in order to be a winner from afar?

Which side do you think I wanted to win? Because I wasn't aware I'd expressed an opinion on here.

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?

Remain

Leave

Wouldn’t vote

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Well-known member

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Well-known member

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Well-known member

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Well-known member

Well-known member

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Well-known member

The voice of treason

Well-known member

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class

Share this page