Looks like some of the traffic I follow across The Plain (except fewer tank transporters). Also a bit like the A470 going up to the Beacons. I must admit the Trump flag may have been a tad "over the top"
.Off Topic Politics Thread
- Thread starter ChilcoSaint
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
.
True. With all these "fascists threatening democracy", maybe a nice bunch of politicians will ignore a mandate from the people.
Constitutional Monarchy not looking so bad now, is it?
(BTW, that's not aimed at you Schad. I have no idea what your views on the monarchy are
)
Sorry, what mandate? Since when did the narrowest of margins in a binary vote become a "mandate" to completely disregard the wishes of 48% of the electorate?
Absolutely. I've said many times that if there had been a massive majority in favour of leaving I would have reluctantly accepted the result. But 17 million out of 46 million registered to vote is not the mandate of the people.
Isn't it strange that Farage's "If it's close there'll simply have to be another referendum" (when he thought he was going to lose) seems to have been whisked away on the wind like a bad fart on a football terrace.
Equally strange is that May seems to think that 99.99% of the British population wanted Brexageddon max and major trade deals with Uzbekistan.
Vin
Equally strange is that May seems to think that 99.99% of the British population wanted Brexageddon max and major trade deals with Uzbekistan.
Vin
Last edited:
It's a real shame that about 13m didn't bother to vote.
I agree entirely, but I would put this down to a combination of complacency that the status quo would be maintained, confusion at what we were actually voting for (or against), and the normal apathy that afflicts elections.
If 16-18 year olds had been allowed to vote (and it's their future we are talking about), as they were in the Scottish Referendum, the result would almost certainly have gone the other way.
Brexit, however, is probably now inevitable. But the terms of it don't have to be.
Brexit, however, is probably now inevitable. But the terms of it don't have to be.
Mandate: The authority to carry out a policy, regarded as given by the electorate to a party or candidate that wins an election:
Oxford English Dictionary
Well, the votes of 52% should outweigh those of the 48%. It is apparent that to some, the 48% are more important than the 52% (A better class of person perhaps?).
In fact a "binary" vote is the clearest one of all. Which is kind of the point of it.
As for those who didn't bother...their votes have never counted in any form of election...ever.
Who said anything about completely disregarding the wishes of those who lost? I am referring to opportunists who want to reverse a decision which didn't go their way.
I agree that the terms of the departure should be debated, but those who wish to use this opportunity to completely derail it are playing a very dangerous game.
Not sure I agree with lowing the voting age. Some youngsters might understand the enormity of it but a lot would either not bother or do what their parents do. Even some adults didn't seem to understand the importance of the vote despite all the information available from all types of sources. I do vaguely remember being that age and getting the new Police album would probably have been more important.
Why stop at 16 ? Why not the 13 year olds? I believe that the 18-25 group had the lowest turnout of all...THEY could have swung it if they'd bothered.
Ken Clarke, speaking today:
"Let me give an analogy in explaining the position for members of parliament after this referendum. I have fought Lord knows how many election over the past 50 years and I have always advocated voting Conservative. The British public in their wisdom have occasionally failed to take my advice and they have actually by a majority voted Labour. And I have found myself here facing a Labour government.
I do not recall an occasion where I was told it was now my democratic duty to support Labour policies under Labour governments on the other side of the House. That proposition would have been treated with ridicule and scorn. "
Vin
No he shouldn't support Labour policies...but he always accepted that they have the MANDATE to carry those out with their (however slim) majority. Therefore, he should use this opportunity to debate how best to leave, rather than to deny the result of the vote and seek to overturn it, which is precisely what he's done apparently.
The problem is that the nutters in charge of the government have taken it upon themselves to decide that the referendum was a clear mandate to leave the single market, burn all our bridges with Europe and set up trade deals with the world's despots (Trump and Erdogan, for god's sake). It wasn't anything of the sort.
The gang of four even spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to try to avoid any kind of debate. So as far as I'm concerned, sudden claims from a government forced into a debate shouting that democracy is suddenly all that matters rank as sheer unadulterated hypocrisy.
I sincerely hope there's a referendum before we leave to confirm that the people want what's on offer. Then if moderation wins and we stay in the single market, I look forward to the Mail and Express telling us that democracy only counts for votes held on June 23rd 2016.
Vin
It's not a conspiracy. Nor is it incompetence. If it was incompetence or a conspiracy that they could cloak under the guise of incompetence, someone would have said "Ooops. That was an oversight. Sorry. We'll get this fixed."
But they're not trying to cover their tracks. It's like "Yeah, that's right. We did it because you cannot trust 5 year olds."
It's very obvious what they are doing. People just don't want to believe it because it's like "No way. These guys can't possibly be that evil and get in power. Not in America." But, it happened.
If Remain had won 52:48, what would the Leave campaigners have done?
1. Pack up, go home and be quiet
2. Denied the mandate and campaigned harder than ever before saying that the closeness of the vote meant that 48% were being ignored, must be a debate, must be another referendum (you know, like Farage did say when he thought he might lose), huge vote against, etc, etc, etc, etc.. blah, blah, blah
If anyone's being truly honest the answer is obvious. Yet Remain doing the same is, for some weird reason, utterly undemocratic. Odd.
Vin
Not sure I agree with lowing the voting age. Some youngsters might understand the enormity of it but a lot would either not bother or do what their parents do. Even some adults didn't seem to understand the importance of the vote despite all the information available from all types of sources. I do vaguely remember being that age and getting the new Police album would probably have been more important.
Regatta De Blanc? Probably was more important tbf.
I only mentioned lowering the voting age to 16 because it has already been done once, in Scotland. Not sure whether it's a good idea or not, really. The few 16 year olds I know seem to have at least as good a grasp of current affairs as their parents though.
We don't know; it didn't happen. Farage, although influential, was not the key mover in this vote. I suspect that the majority of the leavers would have accepted the decision, grumbled, moaned a bit and got on with their lives. Some hardliners may well have campaigned in local and European elections and asked for another referendum if the situation changed dramatically in future. (Let's face it, they did wait 40 odd years last time).
It's all conjecture, and as such not a valid excuse for remainers to immediately try and overturn a mandate.