Move To France

[HallyButt]

As for the vote, it was about it was just under 52% in favour just 48% remain - hardly a unanimous, unequivocal result. If you applied statistics to the result it is well within realm’s statistical error. It’s why referenda should be 2/3 required, or at least 60%.

Many parts of the UK, especially Scotland where unequivocally remain, and I have chosen to live in Scotland.

And the party that brought this on all of us was well and truly booted into the long grass at the last election.

The whole point of democratic process is to do good for all the peoples in a country, not do massive harm to a large portion of the population for the benefit of a few very wealthy. The likes of Trump, Boris, Rees Mogg and Farage don’t that. I suspect they will get their just reward in time.

⅔ required for democracy to be acted upon?, on that basis, nothing would ever have happened ..

As for Scotland, they had a great chance to leave, but elected to stay on the gravy train …

 

[Heym SR20]

⅔ required for democracy to be acted upon?, on that basis, nothing would ever have happened ..

As for Scotland, they had a great chance to leave, but elected to stay on the gravy train …

In most countries, organisations, company law etc change of constitution requires a majority that is well over 60% on a vote or referendum. In company law the figure is 75%, in a jury it has to be a unanimous decision or only one to two out of the 12 for a majority.

The reason is that changes in constitution have a huge effect and you need to be absolutely that the majority want it to happen. On a 50% basis you only one person out of however many millions to change their mind to win the vote.

The Brexit referendum is particularly troubling as the Brexit side where found by electoral commission to have misled the electorate, they pleaded guilty and paid the fines. It would have only taken a few who were misled to have changed their minds for a very different result to have happened.

 

[tackb]

In most countries, organisations, company law etc change of constitution requires a majority that is well over 60% on a vote or referendum. In company law the figure is 75%, in a jury it has to be a unanimous decision or only one to two out of the 12 for a majority.

The reason is that changes in constitution have a huge effect and you need to be absolutely that the majority want it to happen. On a 50% basis you only one person out of however many millions to change their mind to win the vote.

The Brexit referendum is particularly troubling as the Brexit side where found by electoral commission to have misled the electorate, they pleaded guilty and paid the fines. It would have only taken a few who were misled to have changed their minds for a very different result to have happened.

labour got 34% of the vote in the recent general election , largely based on lies it would seem as well.............

also reform got loads more votes than the lib/dems but very few seats , i hope you are campaigning against that injustice too ?

 

[reiver]

That’s about all Brexiteers can say. You have yet to show any real positive benefits.

I do like the duty free fags and booze .
Much easier now I only have to pop across the channel to the Eu rather than flying 1000s of miles to other non eu countries so it’s also good for the environment too .
How’s that for a couple of examples

 

[Heym SR20]

labour got 34% of the vote in the recent general election , largely based on lies it would seem as well.............

also reform got loads more votes than the lib/dems but very few seats , i hope you are campaigning against that injustice too ?

Agreed - I don’t our first past the post system gives good representation. We all forget though that we are voting fir individual MPs in our own constituencies. Mine we SNP, Lib dem, Labour and Conservative. Each gets 20% plus or minus a little bit. We have had 8 years of SNP, now we have labour there on about 30%.

In other words 70% don’t agree. Personally, my view is that we do need to have a second round of voting in our elections where say the top three go through, so that we end up with candidates whom the people have actually voted for.

And in parliament laws get changed on a simple 50%, and often the decision is made on electoral bargaining etc. The threshold should be higher so that any really good and well thought legislation gets through and we don’t have endless stream of stupid legislation - look at the knife laws now being enforced.

 

[tackb]

Agreed - I don’t our first past the post system gives good representation. We all forget though that we are voting fir individual MPs in our own constituencies. Mine we SNP, Lib dem, Labour and Conservative. Each gets 20% plus or minus a little bit. We have had 8 years of SNP, now we have labour there on about 30%.

In other words 70% don’t agree. Personally, my view is that we do need to have a second round of voting in our elections where say the top three go through, so that we end up with candidates whom the people have actually voted for.

And in parliament laws get changed on a simple 50%, and often the decision is made on electoral bargaining etc. The threshold should be higher so that any really good and well thought legislation gets through and we don’t have endless stream of stupid legislation - look at the knife laws now being enforced.

the knife laws are ridiculous as are many laws we have now , and i can guarantee labour will just add to the nonsense laws !

none of them want to deal with the real issues regarding knife crime for fear of being branded racist

 

[HallyButt]

Agreed - I don’t our first past the post system gives good representation. We all forget though that we are voting fir individual MPs in our own constituencies. Mine we SNP, Lib dem, Labour and Conservative. Each gets 20% plus or minus a little bit. We have had 8 years of SNP, now we have labour there on about 30%.

In other words 70% don’t agree. Personally, my view is that we do need to have a second round of voting in our elections where say the top three go through, so that we end up with candidates whom the people have actually voted for.

And in parliament laws get changed on a simple 50%, and often the decision is made on electoral bargaining etc. The threshold should be higher so that any really good and well thought legislation gets through and we don’t have endless stream of stupid legislation - look at the knife laws now being enforced.

How does low voter turn out calculate in this, do 70% of the population need agree or those who have voted?

Do you work for FIFA? How would you decide the knock out stages with 3 participants? Winner stays on? What if they need to go to the toilet or run out 50p’s?

UK democracy isn’t perfect, BUT it’s better than many other systems and millions have died to uphold it so try to suggest the rules should be changed because you don’t Like the outcome is unpleasant

If you don’t like the UK (and can prove your individual value) all sorts of other regimes will welcome you as a subject

 

[Feugh]

Blah, blah, blah Brexit.

 

[Heym SR20]

How does low voter turn out calculate in this, do 70% of the population need agree or those who have voted?

Do you work for FIFA? How would you decide the knock out stages with 3 participants? Winner stays on? What if they need to go to the toilet or run out 50p’s?

UK democracy isn’t perfect, BUT it’s better than many other systems and millions have died to uphold it so try to suggest the rules should be changed because you don’t Like the outcome is unpleasant

If you don’t like the UK (and can prove your individual value) all sorts of other regimes will welcome you as a subject

So we shouldn’t question things then? I absolutely do know how other countries work. I am an immigrant into the UK. I was not born here. Like my father I was born in central Africa. I was born after independence, but I am not of indigenous nature of the country where I was born so have no rights there. I have lived in the UK for majority of my life, and the biggest chunk in Scotland. I started my career back in Central Africa, but chose to come back to the UK as political climate in Zim and Zambia in the mid 1990’s was not conducive to good health or long life.

There are many things thatI do like about the UK. Its tolerance to others, its ability to take an international view, but over the last few years there is decidedly nasty and intolerant view expressed by some against anybody who is not from here. Don’t worry I have had plenty of such views expressed to me over the years, even though my family name does appear in the Doomsday book.

Unfortunately for most of those who express such views, just having a British passport means that I don’t have the freedom to go and settle elsewhere, nor do I want to. But I did thoroughly enjoy working with companies all over Europe, and it was so much easier than trying to work overseas where you need work permits, visas etc before you can do anything.

We have also taken away the freedom from the next generations.

 

[tackb]

We have also taken away the freedom from the next generations.

how have we taken anyone's freedom away !

people today enjoy more freedoms than anyone !

 

[Bavarianbrit]

I do like the duty free fags and booze .
Much easier now I only have to pop across the channel to the Eu rather than flying 1000s of miles to other non eu countries so it’s also good for the environment too .
How’s that for a couple of examples

The booze on the Dover ferries is more expensive than in the high St. Duty free it is but not profit free, you fell for that one hook line & sinker.

 

[Heym SR20]

how have we taken anyone's freedom away !

people today enjoy more freedoms than anyone !

I would say that you are gullible, but part of the withdrawal agreement was to remove gullible from the English language.

 

[reiver]

The booze on the Dover ferries is more expensive than in the high St. Duty free it is but not profit free, you fell for that one hook line & sinker.

never said I buy on the ferry

 

[tackb]

I would say that you are gullible, but part of the withdrawal agreement was to remove gullible from the English language.

i could agree with you but then we'd both be wrong...........

 

[Bavarianbrit]

never said I buy on the ferry

Just saying.

 

[HistoricBore]

It'd really, truly, be a lot lot easier in Ireland as the Anglo-Irish Treaty and those rights give you an absolute right to live and work and reside in Ireland. Do that and eventually get Irish nationality and just like our dear friend Tommy Robinson (yes that one) as a Irish passport holder you can then can re-enjoy the rights that attach to an EU Citizen. Heck you might even like it so much in Ireland you'll decide to stay there anyway.

Have you tried Irish wine??

 

[tackb]

Have you tried Irish wine??

do you mean the one made with melted penguins ?

 

[Apthorpe]

Ok you don’t have to give us any positives. But many of us do wonder if you can.

As for the vote, it was about it was just under 52% in favour just 48% remain - hardly a unanimous, unequivocal result. If you applied statistics to the result it is well within realm’s statistical error.

Nonsense. If you apply statistics to it, the result is 52% leave, 48% remain. There is no statistical error because the referendum result was not a sample, but a population result, which incidentally attracted the highest turnout for decades. Thus the argument that the referendum vote was in any way democratically deficient is nothing more or less than mendacious.

It’s why referenda should be 2/3 required, or at least 60%.

Suppose the referendum had required a 60% vote to Remain? You'd be happier about that, despite arguing that it would have been fairer?
Ignoring the fact that your premise for this is wrong, if you require anything other than simple majority, like 60%, then any referendum is necessarily rigged. The suggestion is inherently anti-democratic. For example with the Scottish referendum (to avoid the subject of your habitual derangement), the result would be quite different depending on which answer required the 60% vote. Thus any referendum would be decided not by democratic means but by the state, in very much the same way as "democratic" votes operate in Russia, China and North Korea. I would like to think that isn't something you prefer to the imperfect democracies of the UK, but you do tend to express strong preferences for the undemocratic and against democratic freedoms.

Many parts of the UK, especially Scotland where unequivocally remain, and I have chosen to live in Scotland.

But the whole of the UK chose to leave in a democratic process, and that is the real point of the democratic process. You can't start fragmenting the result and challenging its validity because one minority or other doesn't like it. If the situation of living in a democratic country is unbearable, then leave; if not, then accept the rules of the game and get over it.

And the party that brought this on all of us was well and truly booted into the long grass at the last election.

The whole point of democratic process is to do good for all the peoples in a country,

That's a clear misrepresentation.

not do massive harm to a large portion of the population for the benefit of a few very wealthy.

Brexit hasn't done "massive harm" to any more than a tiny minority of people, and has provided (too few) universal benefits.

The likes of Trump, Boris, Rees Mogg and Farage don’t that. I suspect they will get their just reward in time.

Either the likes of Trump and Boris are populists or they're not. Their opponents can't have it both ways - that's being even more dishonest than Boris.

 

[Basil H]

We are where we are, but i do wonder whether the vehement leavers understand the term "advisory" ?

 

[tackb]

We are where we are, but i do wonder whether the vehement leavers understand the term "advisory" ?

i wanted brexit and voted for it but i wouldn't describe myself as vehement.

i do wonder if remainers understand the term 'lost' ?