Krueger's Korner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

And my present is...

"It looks like you've happened on a consulting detective's trove of evidence: mostly about smuggling and riverside murders. Scribbled notes in the margins read: "Leadbeater & Stainrod w/Drwnies??", "black song notation" and "fluke lumps."

19 x Dubious Testimony. Wonder how I can use that.

 

I can't believe I spent 100 coins on that. I could have bought a hat.

 

Good, you spotted that then! It's called facetiousness and is commonly used in response to unintentionally hilarious comments.........

Such as......

"I'm dead against an EU referendum, because the country will probably vote to leave, which is a really stupid idea."

God forbid that the country might vote against your wishes.

 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/family-snub-funeral-british-teen-cop-killer-alexandria-hollinghurst-1443282
Some people are ****ed up.

 

Worked in Wales and Scotland. THEY didn't have to vote again. Then again they weren't voting against EU directives.

 

Mine either....

 

Joe. How about Fallen London as your Not606 username. Seems mysterious. Might appeal to you..?

 

I don't know which referendums you're referring to now. The devolution ones? They didn't vote again because the yes vote won first time. If they'd voted for no devolved government, those who wanted it would have just kept demanding more referendums until they got it.

I'm totally with you that EU referendums are stupid, by the way. Member states shouldn't be allowed to pick and choose which directives and treaties they wish to adopt. It should be all or nothing.

 

Makes me sound like a West Ham fan.

 

Hmm, yes. I can see that. I was looking at it from a Sherlock Holmes angle.

 

Or "my dad voted for them, his dad voted for them and so I'll vote for them" or "I've always voted X and I will again".... even if X have current **** policies.

 

But which? And how will we know without a vote?

As for Scotland; there was a referendum in 1979, resulting in a yes vote, but it did not meet the strict criteria ....so yes, they voted again, 20 years later, with the same result.

Irish vote on Lisbon in 2008 (no) followed by second in 2009 (yes).....meets your description better.

Wales ....who knows? Is there any evidence that they would have had another referendum within a generation, if they had voted the "wrong" way? That is surmise. The Scottish example from 1979 suggests it wouldn't have been for a long time.

 

But which? And how will we know without a vote?

As for Scotland; there was a referendum in 1979, resulting in a yes vote, but it did not meet the strict criteria ....so yes, they voted again, 20 years later, with the same result.

Irish vote on Lisbon in 2008 (no) followed by second in 2009 (yes).....meets your description better.

Wales ....who knows? Is there any evidence that they would have had another referendum within a generation, if they had voted the "wrong" way? That is surmise. The Scottish example from 1979 suggests it wouldn't have been for a long time.


so good, I said it twice!

 

How do we know whether or not we should go to war without a vote? Or whether we should change interest rates? We elect people to make those decisions for us.

 

True, but did you vote last election....and why?

 

Yes we do.

The first responsibility of a government is the defence of the realm. Governments are elected to make fiscal decisions, for which they are accountable at the next election. (Within 5 years max.)
When was the last time anyone in this country was given a similar say in the membership of a political European Union.....never.

The comparison of these domestic issues with such a fundamental issue is a non-starter.

 

So what are you saying? That we should hold regular referendums on EU membership and jump in and out of it as regularly as we change governments? It'd be chaotic.

 

Whatever gave you that idea? "Jump in and out"

One referendum would be nice!

Regular elections are necessary for the other domestic issues.

 

No, you can't have it that way. You say people should have a say on whether we're in or out; well if they vote out, then why shouldn't people a few years down the line get a say as to whether they want back in? If you want to start letting people make this decision, you can't just grant it to them once. It sets a precedent.

And once you give the people a taste of what it's like to have a referendum on an issue, they'll start demanding referendums for all sorts of other things. That undoubtedly would happen.

 

Where do you get this "few years down the line" from? The EU record on referendums? (no, that's a few months down the line)

The Welsh voted in 1997 ...... many disagreed with the result. Have you any idea when the re-run is?

The Scots? Are they voting again on the original issue? No, they're going a stage further.