Did You Know That Inhalers For Asthma...
ChatterBank7 mins ago
What D'you Think Of This ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by 1rovert. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That sound pretty blinkered from where I am sitting, OG.
(Btw I would like to keep a note of the grammar each member prefers, and would like it even more if they only used grammar that I like, but that isn’t really practical. Best we just accept these nuances and focus on what the person is saying. I suspect in the case you might have had an inkling that I didn’t mean that you personally had handed the leadership to May on a plate.)
(Btw I would like to keep a note of the grammar each member prefers, and would like it even more if they only used grammar that I like, but that isn’t really practical. Best we just accept these nuances and focus on what the person is saying. I suspect in the case you might have had an inkling that I didn’t mean that you personally had handed the leadership to May on a plate.)
Farage would have cried foul for several reasons -- focusing on the government's leaflet delivered to millions of homes, or various other things. He even seemed prepared to say as much in his various "concession" speeches over the course of the evening before the result became clear. Of course we'll never know now, but I think its highly likely that he would have moaned far louder than anyone else had the result gone the other way.
But that's by the by. As it happens, the result went the way he wanted, and with it (of course) any possible argument that the result might be too close to be seen as definitive, or not legitimate for some other reason, or shouldn't be binding, etc etc. Such is the prerogative of the victor, I guess.
When I voted in the referendum I did so fully accepting the rules of it, and that therefore has to include accepting the result now that it hasn't gone my way. It's a legal argument as to whether or not Parliament should vote on it. Under the current circumstances, if the members chose to vote against implementing the result it would surely be a travesty. I think OG earlier referred to "morally binding", which is a pretty decent way of putting things.
But ellipsis' comments and statistics about how the vote effectively amounts to a quarter of the total UK population (or a third of the adult population) imposing its will on the rest of it, there is surely no better time to rethink what we mean by democracy in this country. Should we conduct more decisions by referendum in future (and with what rules)? Should people be obliged to vote, so that the voice of the entire electorate is heard?
And now, having voted in principle to "take back control" and give it to the UK parliament, should not the rules for electing that body be reconsidered too? At least some of the reason this debate about parliament being allowed to vote on Article 50 is so controversial is because of a not unreasonable concern that parliament might reject the referendum result. Such a vote could hardly be representative -- and yet parliament is elected by the principle of representative democracy. Maybe some level of electoral reform might soon be back on the table?
But that's by the by. As it happens, the result went the way he wanted, and with it (of course) any possible argument that the result might be too close to be seen as definitive, or not legitimate for some other reason, or shouldn't be binding, etc etc. Such is the prerogative of the victor, I guess.
When I voted in the referendum I did so fully accepting the rules of it, and that therefore has to include accepting the result now that it hasn't gone my way. It's a legal argument as to whether or not Parliament should vote on it. Under the current circumstances, if the members chose to vote against implementing the result it would surely be a travesty. I think OG earlier referred to "morally binding", which is a pretty decent way of putting things.
But ellipsis' comments and statistics about how the vote effectively amounts to a quarter of the total UK population (or a third of the adult population) imposing its will on the rest of it, there is surely no better time to rethink what we mean by democracy in this country. Should we conduct more decisions by referendum in future (and with what rules)? Should people be obliged to vote, so that the voice of the entire electorate is heard?
And now, having voted in principle to "take back control" and give it to the UK parliament, should not the rules for electing that body be reconsidered too? At least some of the reason this debate about parliament being allowed to vote on Article 50 is so controversial is because of a not unreasonable concern that parliament might reject the referendum result. Such a vote could hardly be representative -- and yet parliament is elected by the principle of representative democracy. Maybe some level of electoral reform might soon be back on the table?
Jim, //ellipsis' comments and statistics about how the vote effectively amounts to a quarter of the total UK population (or a third of the adult population) imposing its will on the rest of it.//
You know what ‘they’ say about statistics but that aside, it’s reasonable to assume that those who didn’t bother to vote were happy to go with the majority verdict. If they weren’t they’d have taken the trouble to vote. This constant whining is becoming really tedious.
You know what ‘they’ say about statistics but that aside, it’s reasonable to assume that those who didn’t bother to vote were happy to go with the majority verdict. If they weren’t they’d have taken the trouble to vote. This constant whining is becoming really tedious.
But to be fair, Naomi, this constant denial that the Leave camp wouldn’t have been doing the same is also becoming tedious.
I am not one advocating a second referendum, but I do think that the Leave camp haven’t exactly helped this situation. The petition was of course started by a few in the Leave camp who thought that they would lose because that is what the polls said. They laid out what has now become the minimum requirement that some feel should be needed to win. Then on top of that the UKIP leader made a blunder saying that it would be unfinished business if it was 48/52 when he thought they would lose. Now I am not suggesting that these mean anything legally, but they were stupid errors which have been seized upon by some in the Remain camp. I can’t believe that anyone in the Leave camp can honestly say that had the tables been turned and the same errors made by the Remain camp, that they wouldn’t have been seized upon them too.
The reality is that, though many on here seemed to know it, the Leave camp didn’t really believe it was going to win. That is also why we have had this debacle since the victory because they didn’t really have a strategy for going forward. Everything is easier in retrospect, but more confidence in the outcome and a proper strategy for government would have saved a lot of this hassle.
I am not one advocating a second referendum, but I do think that the Leave camp haven’t exactly helped this situation. The petition was of course started by a few in the Leave camp who thought that they would lose because that is what the polls said. They laid out what has now become the minimum requirement that some feel should be needed to win. Then on top of that the UKIP leader made a blunder saying that it would be unfinished business if it was 48/52 when he thought they would lose. Now I am not suggesting that these mean anything legally, but they were stupid errors which have been seized upon by some in the Remain camp. I can’t believe that anyone in the Leave camp can honestly say that had the tables been turned and the same errors made by the Remain camp, that they wouldn’t have been seized upon them too.
The reality is that, though many on here seemed to know it, the Leave camp didn’t really believe it was going to win. That is also why we have had this debacle since the victory because they didn’t really have a strategy for going forward. Everything is easier in retrospect, but more confidence in the outcome and a proper strategy for government would have saved a lot of this hassle.
Quote - "The Petitions Committee has decided to schedule a House of Commons debate on this petition. The debate will take place on 5 September at 4.30pm in Westminster Hall, the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate will be opened by Ian Blackford MP.
The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.
A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
The Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website: http://
The Committee has decided that the huge number of people signing this petition means that it should be debated by MPs. The Petitions Committee would like to make clear that, in scheduling this debate, they are not supporting the call for a second referendum. The debate will allow MPs to put forward a range of views on behalf of their constituents. At the end of the debate, a Government Minister will respond to the points raised.
A debate in Westminster Hall does not have the power to change the law, and won’t end with the House of Commons deciding whether or not to have a second referendum. Moreover, the petition – which was opened on 25 May, well before the referendum – calls for the referendum rules to be changed. It is now too late for the rules to be changed retrospectively. It will be up to the Government to decide whether it wants to start the process of agreeing a new law for a second referendum.
The Petitions Committee is a cross-party group of MPs. It is independent from Government. You can find out more about the Committee on its website: http://
I'm not bemoaning the legitimacy of this result within the current rules, nor am I arguing for the rules to be changed retrospectively, Naomi. What I did mean was that questions of that nature have been hanging over our democracy for years -- decades, even. I would have thought that, as the referendum was a vote to return power as far as possible to the UK parliament, now is the best time possible to reassess the way in which it's elected and in which decisions are made. There hasn't just been a lack of trust in the EU but in politicians in general, so it's not a totally unreasonable point.
Among other concerns: low turnout; low victory threshold (in referendums, a requirement of 2/3 majority for change isn't uncommon); plurality vs. majority in constituencies; reform of upper chamber, etc. If you wanted me to be optimistic, this is one place I am. The vote to leave the EU gives no better excuse to sort out our own democracy.
Among other concerns: low turnout; low victory threshold (in referendums, a requirement of 2/3 majority for change isn't uncommon); plurality vs. majority in constituencies; reform of upper chamber, etc. If you wanted me to be optimistic, this is one place I am. The vote to leave the EU gives no better excuse to sort out our own democracy.
Naomi, you may call the numbers I posted "statistics" in order to trot out the tired "what they say about statistics" line, but they are the simple facts of the referendum, plain numbers for you and others to interpret as you will. They are not "damned lies". I note in other threads you are happy to talk "statistics" when it suits you, e.g. the numbers of black people killed by white police officers in the USA.
Some interpret the 72.2% turnout as "high". I interpret it as "mediocre" for a referendum of this magnitude, "high" for a General Election. The Scottish referendum had an 84.6% turnout, for example. I don't blame "Leave" for the low turnout, I blame "Remain" for failing to mobilise their potential voters.
The fact remains that the majority of people in the country may well want to Remain in Europe, so phrases like "the wishes of the people" as uttered by Theresa May should cause some concern among Brexiters. I certainly would not expect her to be pushing for Brexit Max considering how close the vote was and given that she was herself (allegedly) a Remainer.
Some interpret the 72.2% turnout as "high". I interpret it as "mediocre" for a referendum of this magnitude, "high" for a General Election. The Scottish referendum had an 84.6% turnout, for example. I don't blame "Leave" for the low turnout, I blame "Remain" for failing to mobilise their potential voters.
The fact remains that the majority of people in the country may well want to Remain in Europe, so phrases like "the wishes of the people" as uttered by Theresa May should cause some concern among Brexiters. I certainly would not expect her to be pushing for Brexit Max considering how close the vote was and given that she was herself (allegedly) a Remainer.
Garaman, I would be willing to bet that had the vote been reversed, the ‘Leavers’ wouldn’t have been saying what they’re saying now.
Jim, whatever your reasons as far as I can see you’re complaining about the result.
DTC, //....."Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."//
That’s a pretty stupid thing to say - and to applaud. (Didn’t you say a day or so back that you belong to the Conservative Party?).
Jim, whatever your reasons as far as I can see you’re complaining about the result.
DTC, //....."Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives."//
That’s a pretty stupid thing to say - and to applaud. (Didn’t you say a day or so back that you belong to the Conservative Party?).
Latest Posts
Technology12 mins ago
Assisted Dying, Here's Where It...
News22 mins ago
ChatterBank35 mins ago
Businesses Warn Of Job Losses Threat As...
News40 mins ago
