Brexit (Old)

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by jfman

Whatever happened to we’re all in this together.

Brexit appealed to the lowest common denominator in society so it can’t be considered a surprise that when it doesn’t deliver to expectations they will kick out.

It’d be preferable for any riots or looting to be larger, sending the country further into crisis. It’d focus the minds of our politicians and we’d maybe see some honesty for a change.

Riots? Looting? I think we underestimate the apathy of the masses..... As long as Strictly is on, and they can still order pizza, they'll keep their heads down and descend into a diabetic coma.

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

The Pro-Brexit "yellow vests" were handing out these fliers in London today showing a list of the things they, the U.K. Yellow Vests, stand for - I think they meant "against" rather "for" most of the items.

Some one's probably at home right now banging their head against the wall saying oops

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Riots? Looting? I think we underestimate the apathy of the masses..... As long as Strictly is on, and they can still order pizza, they'll keep their heads down and descend into a diabetic coma.

l hope l am not included in your description of the masses as l don't watch Strictly and l don't order pizza.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by denphone

l hope l am not included in your description of the masses as l don't watch Strictly and l don't order pizza.

Then you'll be the one rioting Den

Originally Posted by ianch99

Yes, Referenda

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/referenda

Seems either are fine ..

An American English online dictionary without any discussion or etymology? No thanks ...

The Oxford English Dictionary says no, but seeing as it’s behind a paywall the closest we can get to its wisdom is sadly via a discussion of it at Wikipedia ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

In short, because it is coined in English as an English noun, and not according to its Latin usage, it should be pluralised according to English grammatical rules, not Latin ones. Hence referendums, not referenda.

Dictionary.com is simply recording the fact that the word is used in that way, not necessarily that it is correct to do so.

But we digress.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Then you'll be the one rioting Den

Not for me Mr K as l don't fancy spending a night in the cell and having a criminal record at the end of it all.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Riots? Looting? I think we underestimate the apathy of the masses..... As long as Strictly is on, and they can still order pizza, they'll keep their heads down and descend into a diabetic coma.

I said it’d be preferable in the event of leaving.

However yes, I agree with your point about general apathy.

[richard s]

I have just found out that the Tory MP leavers want to build a wall straight up the middle of the English channel.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Chris

An American English online dictionary without any discussion or etymology? No thanks ...

The Oxford English Dictionary says no, but seeing as it’s behind a paywall the closest we can get to its wisdom is sadly via a discussion of it at Wikipedia ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

In short, because it is coined in English as an English noun, and not according to its Latin usage, it should be pluralised according to English grammatical rules, not Latin ones. Hence referendums, not referenda.

Dictionary.com is simply recording the fact that the word is used in that way, not necessarily that it is correct to do so.

But we digress.

There's always the Cambridge English Dictionary as a falllback.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dic...ish/referendum

Or even Oxford Living Distionaries.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/referendum

From example sentences.

‘He could also claim a legitimacy built on a succession of victories in irreproachably clean popular votes in referendums and multi-party elections.’

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Chris

An American English online dictionary without any discussion or etymology? No thanks ...

The Oxford English Dictionary says no, but seeing as it’s behind a paywall the closest we can get to its wisdom is sadly via a discussion of it at Wikipedia ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

In short, because it is coined in English as an English noun, and not according to its Latin usage, it should be pluralised according to English grammatical rules, not Latin ones. Hence referendums, not referenda.

Dictionary.com is simply recording the fact that the word is used in that way, not necessarily that it is correct to do so.

But we digress.

Interesting side debate. Annoying we can't see the OED.
Side point: ianch99's link referenced Collins (a UK publisher not US) and it has referenda available as a plural. My preference is referendums for as you say, referendum has been brought into the English language.
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/di...ish/referendum

[jfman]

If a word is used incorrectly enough it gets defined that way.

It literally kills me when it happens.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

If a word is used incorrectly enough it gets defined that way.

It literally kills me when it happens.

Lol, thank you for your contribution from the next world.

Meanwhile, Theresa May could be facing a coup if she loses the vote on Tuesday. The Sunday Times reports that a cross-party group of backbenchers are planning to take control of exit talks if her plan falls through.

[jfman]

I did spot a link to that on Twitter, wasn’t 100% sure how to link to the image. A genuinely interesting article that frames the difficulty of our ‘unwritten’ constitution.

It’s based on norms and common practice. It doesn’t specify an arbiter or ultimate decision maker.

The supremacy of the Commons over the Lords is in statute in the Parliament Act.

The belief is that the will of Government and Parliament can’t be too far apart. In normal times that would be true, a Government would be free to drop a policy it viewed as too contentious, or to make a deal in common ground. Generally a Government wouldn’t be able to be held to ransom by the DUP, or even a jilted ex-Minister and a few friends.

We’ve got a Chancellor who is in the role because May can’t remove him

These are truly uncharted waters.

The Government is presently in contempt of Parliament, a situation that can only embolden the Speaker. If the Government seeks to remove Bercow that only increases the crisis.

Our political system wasn’t designed for a situation where a Government pushes a policy that the majority of MPs oppose, yet it could very well win a vote of confidence.

[Angua]

Originally Posted by Mr K

Riots? Looting? I think we underestimate the apathy of the masses..... As long as Strictly is on, and they can still order pizza, they'll keep their heads down and descend into a diabetic coma.

I watch Strictly but don't order pizza. A better analogy would be BB or Love Island (neither of which I watch). Strictly is frightfully middle class don't you know?

Would rather see A50 extended and an acceptable deal worked out, than dropping of a cliff edge into no deal.

Before the referendum was called, I suspect no thought whatsoever was given to the NI border issues relating to the GFA. May getting into bed with the DUP has hampered negotiations ever since, but the election results meant to govern she needed other support.

Adversarial politics mean we are where we are.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

An American English online dictionary without any discussion or etymology? No thanks ...

The Oxford English Dictionary says no, but seeing as it’s behind a paywall the closest we can get to its wisdom is sadly via a discussion of it at Wikipedia ...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum

In short, because it is coined in English as an English noun, and not according to its Latin usage, it should be pluralised according to English grammatical rules, not Latin ones. Hence referendums, not referenda.

Dictionary.com is simply recording the fact that the word is used in that way, not necessarily that it is correct to do so.

But we digress.

Final word is to be had by the formidable Betty Boothroyd

UK Politics: News Referendums or referenda?

Latin or English? Singular or plural? The gerundive ... or not?

Speaker Betty Boothroyd was plunged on Wednesday morning into this thorny grammatical debate: is the plural of referendum "referendums" or "referenda"?

Tory MP and author Alan Clark pressed her to give a ruling, or at least a preference, on which MPs should use.

With murmurs of "it's the gerundive" from the Tory benches, Mr Clark (Kensington and Chelsea), encouraged the Speaker to "strike a blow for classical revivalism."

But Betty Boothroyd was not going to be drawn. It was, she said, "All a matter of taste".

The Speaker took the point of order with some humour

Mr Clark asked for the ruling during a debate on referendums. He said he was prompted to do so after remembering that in the past he had been called to order for "using the language of the common market."

His point was that he had "heard on many occasions colleagues refer to referendums - which is an exceedingly ugly term."

He wanted to know whether Madame Speaker would "prefer us to continue to use the Latin word, or whether you have no objection to the continued anglicisation of this term."

The Speaker's answer came swiftly. Although it was hardly a point of order, and more a matter of taste, she said:

"I do notice on the Public Bill List that the word referendums for Scotland and Wales is used there. The word referendum was first used in English 150 years ago, according to the Oxford English dictionary which I've just been able to refer to.

"So I imagine after 150 years the House will be quite used to it now. I think the plural is a matter of taste but I've always preferred the use of the English language to any Latin form if that is of some guidance."

And there - for the time being - the House let the matter rest.