Indeed. In fact, looking back at the France/NL/Ireland EU referenda over the past decade, I consider it most "un-European" of the UK NOT to have MORE referenda until the EU politniks either get the result they want or can dismiss the result as irrelevant.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...hought-uk-stay-in-eu-remain-win-a7102516.html 'I feel like I've been conned' - No ****? That's because you have been!.. 'I didn't know this meant we would actually leave' - You're a ****ing moron then, and should be immediately disenfranchised!... Despair doesn't even begin to cover the way I feel about this!....
Our elections are usually decided by idiots, that's the way democracy works. They are swayed by such important matters as : "He looks nice" or as many who voted for Thatcher said "Let's give a woman a chance." In a country where the top selling newspapers include the Daily Mail and the Sun the appearance of morons should not be a surprise. How many times did you hear people "I'm confused they are not giving us proper information" Really! FFS it's not at all difficult in the age of the internet to inform yourself. I have no doubt following the experience of the first Scottish Referendum that most 16 year olds are far better informed than many of the creatures that do vote.
It's the oh, we're really leaving then, I didn't realise that, etc, that gets at me. Too many uninformed, misinformed, or just totally clueless idiots running around with a mandate to **** up your future and mine!...
A lot of those that voted to leave were part of the Baby Boomer generation and have various issues with the internet, Spurf. I know that a decent chunk of our own members on here are also in that demographic, but I think it had an impact on the vote. Even those that are regularly online go to the same trusted sources for their news and information, generally speaking. The Daily Mail site has millions of users, for example. I found this breakdown of the press' approach to the debate quite interesting: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-cancels-student-media-awards-to-save-costs/ When the media are virtually all leaning one way and willing to lie about what's happening, then the result shouldn't be a surprise.
This was circulating recently on Facebook and I am alone in finding offensive the 'Leavers' somehow trying to claim the patriot card by drawing on this analogy! I am no less 'British' just because I consider the benefits of staying within the EU (or risks of leaving) to outweigh the alternative. Good luck to those that chose otherwise, but I will happily place my service of this country over 40 years against most of the little Englanders spreading these messages. Now feck off the lot of you and let me watch the footie!! #COYBIG!!
From the British Legion website: The poppy is NOT A reflection of politics or religion What makes me think that the same people posting this stuff were also complaining about Jo Cox' death being politicised?
Of course. Its as ridiculous as claiming that everyone who voted to leave are racists. This is really hurting, oddly enough more than when we elect a government that has a vastly smaller mandate! I wonder why people don't get at least as upset (as I do) that the government is elected with 36.9% of the vote, meaning 63.1% voted for someone else. Is that ok? National governments are at least as important as the EU surely?
If the petition reaches more than 17.1 M (whatever the vote was for leaving) then perhaps it shoud be considered, until then Democracy has spoken and should be respected.
I would agree. Unfortunately, until somebody comes up with a better system, the only current alternative is proportional representation. The problems with that system are well documented. I think at one stage Italy had had more elections than there had been years since WW2. The problems I had with the Brexit vote were, firstly the amount of people who voted leave on one issue - immigration. The real issue, the economy, was largely ignored. In one survey, 33% of leave voters freely admitted that they voted leave because the campaign had promised to stop immigration- some even thought that all the immigrants would be sent home!! Yet, just 3% of leave voters cited the economy. Again that doesn't mean that I think all leave voters are racists or uninformed idiots. But, unfortunately, far too many were. It's democracy, and I accept the result. But it's hard to accept that untold damage will be done to the U.K. economy as a result of such ****wittery.
Voting should be made compulsory. To me, if you don't do the thing that millions toiled for, or have died without ever getting that chance, then contempt be upon you. And like the "Brewsters millions" film, there should be a "none of the above" box on the ballot paper. If you cannot stand any of them, then let them know how many of you feel that way.
The problem there is that since the war there has not been a vote with over 50% (according to Wiki- see below) please log in to view this image One party needs to be able to govern and hence needs a majority. Minortity governments do not work. The more parties you have the less likely it is to have an overall majority. The only way I see it is that if people insist on an having an overall majority government, a run-off system is needed, i.e. the leading two parties go into a run-off, the winner is given a certain amount of the seats (based on the original vote share) with the remaining seats split between ALL parties based on the original vote. (PR wise). Say Party A got 36% of the vote, Party B got 34%, Party C got 12%, Party D got 10% and Party E got 8% and then Party A beat Party B in the run-off. Party A would get 36% of the seats plus 36% of 64% = 23.04% which would give them 59.04% of the seats. Party B would get 34% x 64% = 21.76% of the seats, Party C would get 12% of 64% = 7.68% of the seats, Party D would get 10% of 64% = 6.4% of the seats and Party E would get 8% of 64% = 5.12% of the seats. However, in the event that Party B won the run-off, Party B would get 34%+34%of 66% = 56.44% of the seats, Party A would get 36% of 66% = 23.76% of the seats, Party C would get 12% of 66%=7.92% of the seats. Party D would get 10% of 66% = 6.6% of the seats whilst Party E would get 8% of 66% = 5.28% of the seats. Such a system would almost certainly guarentee a majority government and tactical voting would com into place. i.e the Scots could vote for the SNP in the first election but then in the run-off (assuming the SNP were not one of the top two) switch their vote to stop say the Conservatives winning. Such a system would also mean that any party that came third, with say 20% of the vote, would be relatively well represented. The down side is that the winning party would have a landslide victory on almost all occasions.
And what's the headline today? That sums up our media perfectly: focus on the tiny minority as an excuse to ignore the massive majority.
Getting a bit bad for Corybn, by the end of the day the shaddow dustman will have quit and Corbyn's Milkman with fancy his chances to become the next shaddow Foreign Secretary. Why does Labour do this? When the Tories should be tearing themselves apart in public, they grab all the headlines and let the Tories sort out their dirty linen in private.
