Off Topic Impact of Brexit on Football

For what it's worth JK I believe that we will remain part of the EU so you will get your wish, the Government simply won't allow us to leave.

This from Vince Cable, how about this for democracy:

'The scenario not too many people are talking about is a very, very close result on a low turnout, so it has low legitimacy,' he says.

'If there is a 51/49 vote for Brexit on a 50 per cent turnout, Parliament isn't going to allow Brexit on that basis. There could be messy outcomes where the way forward isn't at all clear.'

So basically what he's saying is that if half of the electorate don't care either way the majority vote won't count and we will remain inside the EU ! I must confess that I have serious doubts of a fair referendum.

 

Honestly, anything less than 60% for 'Remain' will be something of a failure for the campaign.
If 'Leave' gets more than 40%, that's still a decent effort.

There has, however, always been an historic argument with referendums of this ilk that, if the establishment is backing the status quo, maybe the non-status quo option should be aiming for 60+% anyway, in order to make significant changes to a situation.

 

JKC bor, KIO is just using good old Norfolk to put you in the picture, and I'm 100% in agreement with him. Diplomatic language is for politicians and us common folk prefer to call a spade a spade.

I need a bit of help.
About a third of EU immigrants live in London, compared with only 11% of the UK-born.

What exactly are UK-born immigrants ??? Surely if born here they are not immigrants ???

 

It means 11% of UK-born people live in London. It makes sense when read/quoted in the context of the entire bullet-point.

 

JKC bor, right, it meant those who were actually born here.

Now the next point raised by KIO.
if the establishment is backing the status quo,
If as you suggest the establishment by which I guess you mean the government decides that the majority to leave is not enough to warrant us leaving the EU then they will opt to remain in the EU. Have I got that right ?

 

Pretty much, yep.
It has occasionally been implemented in past political referendums IIRC. They were wondering whether it should be applied in some way to the Scottish Independence referendum I believe.

I'm not saying I agree with its use, but it is sometimes a consideration. To be fair though, I don't think I've heard anything of note about its potential use RE Brexit.

 

Speak for yourself

 

JKC bor, I am speaking for myself. KIO speaks the same language as me.

Back to KIO point. IF the establishment does implement its right to overturn a majority of the electorate, then why hold a referendum in the first place. We could have saved that £9m spent on leaflets and used it to provide funds for the NHS.

 

The way I see it is that those who want the UK to leave will definitely use their vote as they care more passionately about the outcome. Those who wish to remain in most cases will not be as passionate more like apathetic and they will need to be convinced to get off their backsides and vote. This will definitely benefit the 'Brexiteers'

 

I suppose it's because the establishment thinks the status quo will win outright.

I can't say I'm quite as convinced as KIO that 'Remain' will get the majority of votes.

 

I dunno. Maybe.
I thought you just said that you didn't think 'Leave' would get the majority of votes?

EDIT: oh wait, are you just saying that you think it'll be very close?


Most pollsters/political commentators say that the status quo wins referendums significantly more often than the campaign for change. But hey, not all referendums are the same.

 

I think that it's just one point that will benefit the leave campaign, but yes I think it will be close with 'Remain' the eventual winners. I hope I'm wrong but I rarely am on most things as you know

 

KIO, sit down and take a deep breath!

I agree with you entirely! I've not been scare-mongered as JK appears to have been!

 

JKC bor,

I suppose it's because the establishment thinks the status quo will win outright.

Suppose (yes I can use a supposition too) the government doesn't win outright. This government has in its short life already had to back paddle on policies because of strong opposition. So why should it back paddle on a referendum if it doesn't get its way with the electorate. Thinking it has got it right has not work very well for this government. Need I remind you that there are members of this government that are not in favour of the Prime Minister's policy on the EU. Notice I use the word government and not establishment.

 

Establishment = Government (when it comes to this specific referendum). Yes, correct. What's the problem?

Why are you calling me out on using the word 'suppose'? The establishment/government/whatever must think they're in with a good chance of victory if they've allowed a referendum, no?

You're posting with a fair bit of veiled aggression today, Norkie.

 

JKC bor if I was being aggressive I would not use bor, being polite.

Because I notice you don't qualify your personal answers mainly but resort to being a bit evasive I dunno, maybe, you suppose, you guess. I prefer facts not guesses. That was the reason I resorted to your style of reply.

I have a different idea of what is the government, which is elected by the electorate. To me the establishment is civil servants employed by the government to offer advice and undertake work the government tells them needs doing. They are not elected representatives of the people. Just to ensure we are both talking the same language. I'm still trying to work out what you meant by IIRC.

So to my mind it is the government and not the establishment that is answerable to the electorate, a subtle difference wouldn't you say.

I don't know what the government thinks because it is divided regarding the EU. The referendum was called because it was in the Conservatives manifesto and they won the last election. Whether the government win it is up to the electorate but to me it is pointless if the electorate vote to leave and the government doesn't accept that decision.

Cameron went on a tour of Europe hoping to persuade other countries to back him in his reforms, he only achieved a watered down result and then honoured the manifesto to hold a referendum. What he has achieved has yet to be ratified by the member states and there is no guarantee that his achievements will be accepted. He should have held the referendum after the EU has either ratified or rejected his achievements. If he was confident of winning the ratification he would have held the referendum after that.

 

I think some politicians want to remain as it makes there job easier and also gives them somewhere to place blame away from themselves.

Also Cameron took around a week to try to reform the EU (failed) but negotiating a trade deal supposedly takes in excess of 4 years......he either didn't take the reform seriously or those doing the trade deals are milking it for all they can.

 

It means 'If I recall correctly', Norkie.