UK & EU Agree Post-Brexit Trade Deal

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Chris

You keep telling yourself that if it makes you happy, but in the real world democracy is the least worst means of making decisions despite the fact that it almost always operates on a plurality rather than an outright majority. I don’t believe for one second that you would be making this same argument had the referendum results been precisely reversed.

Active Euro-enthusiasm in the U.K. is and always has been a niche pursuit, just as active Euro-scepticism is. The difference is that the euro-enthusiasts, mostly of the metropolitan, soft liberal left whose connection to the population at large is tenuous at the best of times, smugly assumed that the indifferent masses agreed with them. This has always been their weakness. The sceptics, however, understood that there was genuine anger at various economic and social changes in society and they believed they could motivate the masses to support them if they could show how our EU membership was culpable for those changes.

This they did, the rest is history.

You fail to address the point as usual but it is expected. There is no moral high ground here to claim. You may believe what you like, the facts are clear for history to judge and the spoils the graceless victors seek to grasp will be as elusive as the promises made ...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You fail to address the point as usual but it is expected. There is no moral high ground here to claim. You may believe what you like, the facts are clear for history to judge and the spoils the graceless victors seek to grasp will be as elusive as the promises made ...

You need to get a grip and be more gracious when you are wrong.

Chris directly answered your point about the 37% of voters that you cited.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You come across a a right Ian Blackford.

Those who did not vote in the Referendum can reasonably be expected to go along with the result. Therefore 52/48 is indeed real democracy.

What tripe you write.

Again, your attitude is disappointing. This is not polite debating

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

You need to get a grip and be more gracious when you are wrong.

Chris directly answered your point about the 37% of voters that you cited.

Please drop the condescending attitude. Chris just replied with his (biased) viewpoint, that's all.

My point about the 37% of voters deciding the future of the country was 100% factual and accurate.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Again, your attitude is disappointing. This is not polite debating

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------



Please drop the condescending attitude. Chris just replied with his (biased) viewpoint, that's all.

My point about the 37% of voters deciding the future of the country was 100% factual.

... and of no validity when you bear in mind that the abstainers were content with either outcome.

As to Chris' "biased viewpoint" - it was the counterpoise to your nonsense.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Mick

This logic is deeply flawed as I have kept telling you so, several times and you would miraculously not be saying this rubbish, if Remain had won, conveniently.

And how many of the 1975's electorate decided the destiny of the country when it joined the Europe Economic Area...?

Lets see...

• In 1975, Population was 56 Million in UK.
  
• 40 Million registered to vote.
  
• Just short of 26 Million people voted in the 1975 Referendum. 17.3 Million (how very nearly ironic) voted Yes to remain in the EEA. Over 8 Million did not.
  
• So out of 56 Million people of the entire UK, just 17.3 Million people, decided the countries destiny and not even half of the 40 Million people electorate, because 15 Million did not bother to vote.

The key words is "not bother" that means they didn't give a shit and also then means, they cannot complain after when the vote goes a way they suddenly don't approve of. They had their right to a democratic process but the they chose not to bother for whatever reason, so you cannot never include them in a total percentage calculation, after a result to try nullify a referendum result, you cannot force people to vote, by not voting is also a true democracy.

So those who didn't vote in either referendum, clearly had no desirable preference, that they got off their arses and decided they had to vote. It's too late in the game to then complain after or attend mass walks.

What the 2019 General Election actually showed is that the silent millions who for the last 4 years, got fed up of being told by the Remainers, that they voted the wrong way, voted again to give the party that fully committed to implementing the result, it's 80 seat majority. (Effectively a landslide victory).

I agree, the 1975 United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum should have had a Supermajority-style minimum percentage & turnout. A minimum electorate majority of around 60% is common for national votes on macro-structural or economic decisions. There are variations on the thresholds but they all demand a clear and obvious majority. See: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Supermajority

As it happened, this was not needed since the vote was passed by 67.23% to 32.77% with a turnout of 64.62%. Clear democracy ..

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Again, your attitude is disappointing. This is not polite debating

---------- Post added at 21:50 ---------- Previous post was at 21:46 ----------



Please drop the condescending attitude. Chris just replied with his (biased) viewpoint, that's all.

My point about the 37% of voters deciding the future of the country was 100% factual and accurate.

You are like a stuck record with this crap. It is the way any democracy works. Those who have the inclination to vote do so and the decision is made by the outcome. Anyone and everyone entitled to vote may do so to take part in that process. If anyone decides, as is their democratic right, not to partake then their non-vote is not counted.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

... and of no validity when you bear in mind that the abstainers were content with either outcome.

As to Chris' "biased viewpoint" - it was the counterpoise to your nonsense.

Your involvement of the non-voting electorate is gibberish, they literally did not vote and so they are irrelevant to the point being made.

37% of voters literally, legally and factually decided the future of the country. That's it, no ifs or buts.

What is ironic and so telling is that if the Brexit referendum followed the same rules as Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, the Leave vote would still have won – but Brexit would not now be happening. Those voting ‘Yes’ for devolution was only 33% of registered voters, Scotland on that occasion didn’t get its own assembly, because Parliament had set a threshold of at least 40% of the electorate voting ‘Yes’ before it could happen.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------

Originally Posted by pip08456

You are like a stuck record with this crap. It is the way any democracy works. Those who have the inclination to vote do so and the decision is made by the outcome. Anyone and everyone entitled to vote may do so to take part in that process. If anyone decides, as is their democratic right, not to partake then their non-vote is not counted.

Is your awareness of the world so limited?

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Your involvement of the non-voting electorate is gibberish, they literally did not vote and so they are irrelevant to the point being made.

37% of voters literally, legally and factually decided the future of the country. That's it, no ifs or buts.

What is ironic and so telling is that if the Brexit referendum followed the same rules as Scotland’s first referendum on devolution, the Leave vote would still have won – but Brexit would not now be happening. Those voting ‘Yes’ for devolution was only 33% of registered voters, Scotland on that occasion didn’t get its own assembly, because Parliament had set a threshold of at least 40% of the electorate voting ‘Yes’ before it could happen.

---------- Post added at 22:14 ---------- Previous post was at 22:13 ----------



Is your awareness of the world so limited?

No it's you who is limited.

37% of voters literally, legally and factually decided the future of the country. That's it, no ifs or buts.

Legally, factually wrong. No ifs or buts.

Again,as always, you are including those who DID NOT VOTE! As such they were not voters.

[jfman]

This genuinely gives me a headache. Yes it was 37%, but that’s the rules Cameron and the Lib Dems laid out.

Cameron, Clegg, etc made an arse of it. Following 2017 every attempt to prevent Brexit has pushed the needle further in the no deal/WTO direction. At some point they should have cut their losses, backed May’s deal, a customs union or put Corbyn in Downing Street. People’s Vote was nothing but a sham to boost the Lib Dems at the expense of Labour. It didn’t work with either aim.

People voted to leave and having tired of three years where nothing got done elected a Government to do it, and to that end Mick is right.

Reraking the terms of the referendum isn’t going to change reality. It’s only going to give the Government more cover from criticism with an easy get out, that galvanises it’s supporters and dismisses it’s opponents out of hand.

It’s entertaining to observe the Government backtrack on promises made and to have underestimated the task at hand. However, unfortunately, we do need them to make the right decisions eventually.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

This genuinely gives me a headache. Yes it was 37%, but that’s the rules Cameron and the Lib Dems laid out.

Cameron, Clegg, etc made an arse of it. Following 2017 every attempt to prevent Brexit has pushed the needle further in the no deal/WTO direction. At some point they should have cut their losses, backed May’s deal, a customs union or put Corbyn in Downing Street. People’s Vote was nothing but a sham to boost the Lib Dems at the expense of Labour. It didn’t work with either aim.

People voted to leave and having tired of three years where nothing got done elected a Government to do it, and to that end Mick is right.

Reraking the terms of the referendum isn’t going to change reality. It’s only going to give the Government more cover from criticism with an easy get out, that galvanises it’s supporters and dismisses it’s opponents out of hand.

It’s entertaining to observe the Government backtrack on promises made and to have underestimated the task at hand. However, unfortunately, we do need them to make the right decisions eventually.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

This genuinely gives me a headache. Yes it was 37%, but that’s the rules Cameron and the Lib Dems laid out.

Cameron, Clegg, etc made an arse of it. Following 2017 every attempt to prevent Brexit has pushed the needle further in the no deal/WTO direction. At some point they should have cut their losses, backed May’s deal, a customs union or put Corbyn in Downing Street. People’s Vote was nothing but a sham to boost the Lib Dems at the expense of Labour. It didn’t work with either aim.

People voted to leave and having tired of three years where nothing got done elected a Government to do it, and to that end Mick is right.

Reraking the terms of the referendum isn’t going to change reality. It’s only going to give the Government more cover from criticism with an easy get out, that galvanises it’s supporters and dismisses it’s opponents out of hand.

It’s entertaining to observe the Government backtrack on promises made and to have underestimated the task at hand. However, unfortunately, we do need them to make the right decisions eventually.

Phew. Almost reasonable!

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Phew. Almost reasonable!

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

This genuinely gives me a headache. Yes it was 37%, but that’s the rules Cameron and the Lib Dems laid out.

Cameron, Clegg, etc made an arse of it. Following 2017 every attempt to prevent Brexit has pushed the needle further in the no deal/WTO direction. At some point they should have cut their losses, backed May’s deal, a customs union or put Corbyn in Downing Street. People’s Vote was nothing but a sham to boost the Lib Dems at the expense of Labour. It didn’t work with either aim.

People voted to leave and having tired of three years where nothing got done elected a Government to do it, and to that end Mick is right.

Reraking the terms of the referendum isn’t going to change reality. It’s only going to give the Government more cover from criticism with an easy get out, that galvanises it’s supporters and dismisses it’s opponents out of hand.

It’s entertaining to observe the Government backtrack on promises made and to have underestimated the task at hand. However, unfortunately, we do need them to make the right decisions eventually.

No it wasn't 37% of voters. It was 37% of eligible voters. I'm amazed you cannot see the difference.

I know the difference being one who has only voted 3 times in the 47yrs I've been eligible. Once in the 70's to come out and again in the referendum to come out and finally to elect a Government that will ensure we come out. Once that is completed I see no reason to vote again.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

No it wasn't 37% of voters. It was 37% of eligible voters. I'm amazed you cannot see the difference.

I know the difference being one who has only voted 3 times in the 47yrs I've been eligible. Once in the 70's to come out and again in the referendum to come out and finally to elect a Government that will ensure we come out. Once that is completed I see no reason to vote again.

It’s semantics. We both know we are talking about the same thing - the status of those who didn’t vote.

This is exactly the kind of discussion I called irrelevant in my last post - Cameron and Clegg made the rules. Few complained until after the result.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

It’s semantics. We both know we are talking about the same thing - the status of those who didn’t vote.

This is exactly the kind of discussion I called irrelevant in my last post - Cameron and Clegg made the rules. Few complained until after the result.

We need to focus on 2020 and in getting the best deal for the UK.