Brexit - in or out

[counter_violent]

After 100,000 signatures Parliament will consider this for a debate

Its not like they have much else on their hands at the moment Jon...

So 1.7M people sign a petition that wishes to change the referendum rules after the referendum has taken place.

Hmm, there are more dumb people about than I ever imagined.

 

[mike.]

So 1.7M people sign a petition that wishes to change the referendum rules after the referendum has taken place.

Hmm, there are more dumb people about than I ever imagined.

purely because its an online petition, If they felt so passionately about and had to write to their MP it would be in the 100's ... 2-3 clicks and you have signed. The petition is doing the rounds on facebook.

 

[counter_violent]

purely because its an online petition, If they felt so passionately about and had to write to their MP it would be in the 100's ... 2-3 clicks and you have signed. The petition is doing the rounds on facebook.

I have just written to a leading MP as it happens. It will be interesting to see if correspondence ensues. If it does, I might update progress here.

 

[new_trader]

Don't go down that road, please. I have, always felt that referendums over important reforms should need a majority of 66%. 52% is not decisive enough and unfair to the others. But that is what you wanted and that is what you have. Brexit won.

Keep that in mind whenever some imbecile talks about the virtues of democracy.

 

[mike.]

Apologies if this has already been posted earlier....funny though.

 

[forker]

Trained by the best m8, HM Government. No point explaining to you.

You and Forker telling it like it is with your pair of hardened nuts in your hands would make a fantastic negotiation team. Good luck with those.

Listening to question time on Radio 4 right now and it transpires no plans were made by Brexit camp for leaving. Pooh bear!

Is this the fly getting a whiff of it's rear before it... :cheesy:

It's coconuts mate. You don't use any old nut

 

[barjon]

The first casualty or the first opportunity

"Tata Steel bidders get cold feet after referendum result"

The government were prevented from putting together a rescue package for the steel operations because of EU rules. Surely we can just ignore those rules now and protect an industry which has strategic benefits as well as safeguarding thousands of jobs.

 

[Atilla]

It's coconuts mate. You don't use any old nut

It seems that men will always be boys and will always be obsessed with their dangly bits.

 

[counter_violent]

As cv said, there seems no-one in control at the moment and someone's got to step in and give some strong leadership. I was all for staying in but, however much I dislike the result, we ought to get on with it without hindrance.

Oh it's ok, Cameron and Osborne have not gone to ground. They are busy tweeting "good news" messages.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36630900

Really important stuff guys, well done.

 

[NickBk]

I want the UK to remain, as much as anyone. To come out with a request for another referendum because some have changed their minds will make the UK the laughing stock of Europe--if not the world.

Don't go down that road, please. I have, always felt that referendums over important reforms should need a majority of 66%. 52% is not decisive enough and unfair to the others. But that is what you wanted and that is what you have. Brexit won.

In that case then you might recommend 66% to change a sitting MP at a general election.

The problem is that what was voted for 41 years ago was not what exists today, it has changed greatly and been ratified along the way by national governments. I already said when Ireland rejected the Nice treaty we were just made to vote on it again as we must have made a mistake.

The Brexit vote was the first time the UK electorate were allowed to pass their opinion on what the common market has morphed into today and it has grown out of control and no longer represents the majority of the UK electorate, as seen on Thursday. Even if that is one vote more it is democracy, nothing else is fair.

 

[sminicooper]

In that case then you might recommend 66% to change a sitting MP at a general election.

The problem is that what was voted for 41 years ago was not what exists today, it has changed greatly and been ratified along the way by national governments. I already said when Ireland rejected the Nice treaty we were just made to vote on it again as we must have made a mistake.

The Brexit vote was the first time the UK electorate were allowed to pass their opinion on what the common market has morphed into today and it has grown out of control and no longer represents the majority of the UK electorate, as seen on Thursday. Even if that is one vote more it is democracy, nothing else is fair.

EU was okay until we signed up to the Maastricht treaty. Common free-trade area – yes; political union controlled by the politburo in Brussels – no. Something for Boris to think about perhaps?

 

[counter_violent]

This typifies all that is wrong with the EU.
They are never ahead of the curve, always behind it.
Running a continent by committee, never ever going to work is it.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36623685

 

[NickBk]

I agree. Hold the referendum again the day after and the result could be the opposite. Yes definitely 60+% for such a radical change. But as Dave the dunce didn't think of it, it is too late and we should ALL knuckle down to the big challenge ahead imho.

Seven people go out for dinner and the dish of the day is fish but four of the party want steak. Will you tell them it's not a big enough majority and they have to eat fish? I'm guessing the four just get a separate table.

So in your scenario who decides what constitutes a radical change. A government is formed on one extra vote and each seat the same but now we need special rules for more serious matters? The serious matter passed, it was firstly the last general election where Cameron pledged to give an in out vote and in light of Thursday's vote it seems less of a surprise that they got a majority.

How many majority votes should we ignore? As for online petitions, well unless they get over 17,420,000 or whatever, it is just a complaint by people who didn't get their own way.

 

[forker]

It seems that men will always be boys and will always be obsessed with their dangly bits.

 

[hhiusa]

That is just it. Men behaving like boys, including calling attention to it. :innocent:

 

[Splitlink]

Keep that in mind whenever some imbecile talks about the virtues of democracy.

Yes, democracy does have drawbacks.

 

[Splitlink]

In that case then you might recommend 66% to change a sitting MP at a general election.

The problem is that what was voted for 41 years ago was not what exists today, it has changed greatly and been ratified along the way by national governments. I already said when Ireland rejected the Nice treaty we were just made to vote on it again as we must have made a mistake.

The Brexit vote was the first time the UK electorate were allowed to pass their opinion on what the common market has morphed into today and it has grown out of control and no longer represents the majority of the UK electorate, as seen on Thursday. Even if that is one vote more it is democracy, nothing else is fair.

Don't you think that voting for a parliamentary candidate for four years needs a more different approach than a referendum on a constitution made every forty years?

Frankly, I would be very upset if I had been beaten in a referendum by 2% and, in this day and age, one vote, as you suggest, is impossible to be sure of when there are thousands of foreign students in the country who, just on the merit of living there at the time, are allowed a vote.

Still, the rules are to be obeyed and Brexit is, now, the winner.. The %ages should have been considered beforehand.

 

[NickBk]

Don't you think that voting for a parliamentary candidate for four years needs a more different approach than a referendum on a constitution made every forty years?

Frankly, I would be very upset if I had been beaten in a referendum by 2% and, in this day and age, one vote, as you suggest, is impossible to be sure of when there are thousands of foreign students in the country who, just on the merit of living there at the time, are allowed a vote.

Still, the rules are to be obeyed and Brexit is, now, the winner.. The %ages should have been considered beforehand.

No as soon as you start messing with percentages, who decides, on what basis, who elected them to decide. It would never be fairer than +1. Governments change on one vote or one seat, a majority is a majority plain and simple.

To my mind once Cameron gave the in/out vote as an election pledge this was the reason for the surprise win. People were getting ready for Thursday, so in effect they already voted twice.

 

[Oscar Reed]

Look what happens when we get the tails up
Becoming a nation of winners!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/rugby-union/36443669

Aussie coach mate.

Maybe you need an Aussie PM.

Julia is looking for a job.

 

[counter_violent]

When you think of all the backroom deals, stitch ups and sell outs that have gone on previously over the EU. The younger folks have very little idea of the history and festering resentment towards our own political elite. All of this goes a long way to explaining the voting patterns that emerged across age, social class, regions etc. Those with the most axes to grind were the ones with the longest memories.
I'd go so far as to say, if this referendum had been delayed by 5 -10 yrs, there's a strong possibility we would never have voted out.