Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Horse Racing' started by Ron, Jul 22, 2016.
And less voted to stay......
That isn't the point though Chan. One would have thought that, to change something, more than half of the electorate should have to vote for change. Not half of those who went to the booths. The non voters should be regarded as happy with the status quo, or given the odds for the no vote were 12/1 and defeat conceded fairly early by Farage, many didn't bother to vote remain because they thought it was a certainty. I must admit, at those odds it did seem a certainty. They only have themselves to blame.
My point, though not clearly made, was that May has almost admitted that she would vote to remain so is she the right person to be leading the country out of the EU? I'm wondering if she is playing a game of poker that will end in either having to "give way to public demand" and agree to a second referendum once the deal (or no deal) is decided, or (to save face) standing down and let someone else do that
You mean you think she might actually know what she's doing, after all?
Hope so, but I think that's unlikely. She's got absolutely ****all right so far...
No and No, it was known by all before the vote was held that you simply had to win by 1 vote, nobody was interested in turnout and winning margins. The none voters should be viewed as having no opinion, they obviously were not bothered either way hence they did not vote.
I think the so called establishment are playing for time and hoping they can overturn the result.
A 2nd referendum is useless as someone like myself who voted to leave would not vote, the reason being as i would say what is the point? it seems you only want one answer. If millions of leave voters agree with on that principle then what happens on a 30% turnout?
Well, we could speculate all day long as to why non voters didn't vote. I don't agree that all non voters weren't bothered either way but only they themselves know why they didn't. For example my wife and I never bothered to vote Tory in our constituency when we lived in England because we knew it was a very safe seat and our 2 votes wouldn't make a scrap of difference. I would be very surprised if there weren't a significant number of people who thought the referendum result was a foregone conclusion (as the odds on the day indicated) and didn't bother. I was tempted to have a grand on an "Out" result as a security measure but decided it would be throwing money down the drain. Idiot
That wouldn't surprise me one bit
I think you have just agreed with my point above ie not voting does not mean you don't care
" I think you have just agreed with my point above ie not voting does not mean you don't care"
I can see why you say that but it is not what i meant in that regard. We voted and voted out, Cameron and all on both sides agreed it was in or out full stop. Now if we try to hold another referendum in the next 2 years you will have millions who voted out not voting again on principle. That is different from peoeple being too lazy, thought they did not need to bother, or simply couldnt make up their minds.
I agree and disagree with you Ron. Firstly where I disagree with you is the argument that non voters should be regarded as happy with things as they are and are therefore proxy remainers. They couldn't be arsed to suffer 10 minutes inconvenience to their day to have their say. So **** em all, they're irrelevant. I don't believe anyone who had an interest in the vote looked up the odds on paddy power at breakfast time and decided not to bother. I accept this happens in general elections in safe seats but every vote counted in this referendum so I don't buy that argument at all. Where I'm inclined to agree with you is that the terms of the Referendum should have insisted on a much clearer margin of victory for either side - say 55% minimum of the votes cast - to lead to a decisive outcome either way. I suspect that it was set up as it was because gambler Dave wanted to settle this once and for all and felt a close verdict the other way wouldn't have silenced the Tory eurosceptics.
I accept that. it was rather sweeping statement
Totally agree with that. It was one of the first things I mentioned after the result. Big mistake by Cameron
by putting in the margin of victory you are changing the basis of a democratic vote. the team with most votes wins, just like every seat in the UK.
That's a position the winner can take Gazboy (l voted out). However would the Brexiteers have withered on the vine if the result had gone the other way? No chance! Ol boy Farage indicated as much on the evening of the vote when he thought he'd narrowly lost it. This is a massive change to our Country, it's not changing the colour of the ruling party for the next 5 years, and in my view the terms should have set out a clear vote either way.
The average person in Britain is stupid. Therefore, half the population must be stupider still and quite a few are not much better than stupid. Those that cannot be bothered to turn out and vote surely forfeit the right to complain that they did not get what they wanted. Those that are stupid enough to stay at home thinking that their vote is not required equally forfeit their right to complain.
Nothing would ever get done if an absolute majority was required. There will be virtually nobody in Parliament that has a simple majority of the available votes in their constituency; however, we still allow them to govern even though no party has a simple majority either. So we live in a stupid country in a largely stupid world.
I expect that there are quite a few things that Theresa May has to do as PM with which she does not agree because that is party politics: compromise. I expect the case has been the same for her predecessors. May has already demonstrated that she is totally inept when it comes to poker as the Brexit negotiations have been a shambles and it is time somebody woke her up and pointed out that “no deal” is the only result available with the intransigent EU so she should get on with it now and prepare for March 2019 by taking the ball home and not paying for their half of the court unless they make us a realistic offer.
I find it somewhat ironic that the EU Referendum Act 2015 was brought before Parliament by the then Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond. He, like David Cameron, thought that he could get reforms out of the EU that would then make the result a foregone conclusion.
The bill did not include any minimum turnout threshold and did just require a simple majority.
As it was there was a 72 per cent turnout and it went against Cameron because the package of reforms that he obtained from Brussels was insignificant and not unconditional.
There have been two Referenda about what is now the European Union. We originally joined the European Economic Community (the ‘Common Market’) in 1973 without a specific public mandate and then a ratification vote was held in 1975 where the public were sold the idea by pro-Europeans wilfully ignoring the small print and selling the trade/economic side of the deal – the ‘Common Market’.
The problem with Leave winning the second Referendum was that, although there is no requirement in British law for the result of a Referendum to be adhered to, the government’s Remain literature did say that they would act on the result. Amazing that no rich foreigner has gone to the High Court yet to try and stop Brexit on the grounds that there is no legal necessity to act on the Referendum result – they could drag it out for years by appealing to the ECJ.
I think I came to that conclusion a while back. Not sure if she is bluffing with her "preparing for a no deal" or is actually prepared to go that way. I agree totally that, if it would not be disastrous to Britain and would hurt the EU, she should just come out and say enough is enough, you have until xx/xx/xx to agree to our deal on the table. Failure to agree and we're out with no deal by xx/xx/xx. End of. Apparently it is in the EU's interest to drag their heels on an agreement although I'm not sure why; maybe hoping it will cause a late panic agreement to a bad deal?
Interesting views from Lord Lawson regarding brexit and the chancellor on the daily politics today. He stated that the chancellor should be sacked for trying to undermine and scupper brexit and that we shouldn't fear a hard brexit but that the government should make preparations if it happens.
Quite interesting reading the comments posted on this BBC article:
Seems the forum is infact mirroring general UK sentiments in a microcosmic sort of way
A simple question that may difficult to answer is this. What is the difference in Britain's contribution to the EU over the next 10 years (net of rebates) between being in the EU and being out with no deal?
I don't know if there is a factual answer to that question Ron, but the opinion I have formed is that if Britain stayed in the EU the net contributions over the next 10 years would far outweigh any "divorce bill". My logic being based on the following points: (1) Britain is a net contributor (2) In or out, Britain has committed to fund already committed projects (so why is that even being mentioned as part of the "divorce bill"?) (3) The EU expansion to the East will bring with it more costs (4) The increasing federalism and protectionism of the Brussels elite mean more money being poured into Brussels and expended upon projects throughout the EU e.g. the "Euro-Army".
I am very worried about the tax levels here in Germany in 10 years time to pay for all this ............................
Makes no difference to me Oddy what it's called, or what is included in whatever they call it. I just look at it as how much will we be paying for the next 10 years against what we would have been paying (net of rebates) if there wasn't a Brexit.
1. is what concerns me Oddy. We are a net contributor but, with the rebates, we currently contribute about £8.6 billion.
If, for example, our "divorce" bill was £100 billion, payable over 10 years that would be £10 billion pa, which means we would be paying £1.4 billion pa more for the next 10 years. Is that right?
Yep but why would we agree to such nonsense