Brexit..... 43 days to go.

    • NotD

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Largenton wrote:

      And EU citizens who are permanent residents here did not have that opportunity.

      LEGIO wrote:

      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?

      Largenton wrote:

      Name a country which has had a referendum which would deprive those citizens of their right to live there. It is a fundamental right of the EU.

      Largenton wrote:

      1. EU referendum. As I said previously I asked you to name a country that has had a referendum leaving the EU. Ireland didn't
      Out of the 3 countries that have left the EU, ( before Brexit ) Greenland was the only 1 to hold a referendum and with a 53% majority for leave ,they left ..........they didnt even have a second referendum ,how very undemocratic of them,now dont answer a question with a question please
      .
      In which other country are EU citizens allowed to vote in a referendum?

      “The negotiations were a surprisingly unpleasant job,” Lars Vesterbirk, Greenland's former representative to the EU who led the negotiations, told POLITICO. “The EU member states would not take us seriously because they were not willing to accept that you should or could leave.”
      “At the time, you could become a member of the EU but you couldn’t leave,” Vesterbirk said. politico.eu/article/greenland-…europe-vote-news-denmark/

      2

      Largenton wrote:

      . Older voters. You have not provided any proof that there was no correlation between age and voting for or against Brexit. This is a well established position. Here is the BBC breaking it down.

      Largenton wrote:

      . As I mentioned previously, old people in that poll said they voted for Leave. You said that you don't trust people saying that they didn't vote Leave, which means that you are accusing the younger voters of lying. That is prejudiced against young people which is discrimination according to the law where age is a protected characteristics. This of course ignores the fact that the poll reflects the evidence that the more voters under 40 in an area, the more that area is likely to have voted Remain. A gain, your argument relies on saying that young people lie.

      LEGIO wrote:

      Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."

      3

      Largenton wrote:

      3. Sources. When was Junker's speech again? 4 years ago. When is my source from? Last December. Now again, your point is outdated. Plus it is merely a politician giving a speech, it is not a fact check. You are ignoring evidence again.
      Doe it matter if it was 4 days ? ,4 weeks ? or 4 years ago?,the intention is there , but if you need some other lowly politicians saying the same .

      telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/0…d-with-plans-for-eu-army/


      “We face many threats, but I stand here before you with a clear message: the U.S. commitment to the NATO alliance and to Article 5 is unwavering.” these words not being said in trumps speech on the 25th May 2018 will be the thing that the EU blame for the creation of their army. politico.eu/article/the-27-words-trump-wouldnt-say/

      4

      Largenton wrote:

      4. Overspending. Did the government try and conceal it and obstruct the Electoral Commission in pursuing their duty? Did the Electoral Commission state that laws had been broken? Yes I disagree with it, but the corruption value is far worse here. Shame on you for ignoring this.
      The government did not try and conceal the amount spent and the answer from the electoral commission was “We don’t think the government should have done it… [it gives Remain an] unfair advantage… undermines the principle [of spending limits]” quiteu.wordpress.com/2016/04/0…-remain-unfair-advantage/

      5

      Largenton wrote:

      Oh and because I did some checks, the Irish referendum is quite interesting. Ireland put to a referendum the Lisbon Treaty and it was rejected. What then happened was there was some renegotiation and some guarantees were made to Ireland. They then put it to another referendum which accepted the treaty! This seems to be more in favour of a second referendum than Brexit.
      Did you also check who could vote in the referendum ? .I also agree that there was a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and some guarantees where given by the EU to Ireland but i think that the future will tell whether they were lied to or not . Our great PM D. Cameron went and tried for some reforms before the UK referendum,he got nothing.
      Some Junker quotes .

      On Greece's economic meltdown in 2011

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."

      On British calls for a referendum over Lisbon Treaty

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”

      On French referendum over EU constitution

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      Out of the 3 countries that have left the EU, ( before Brexit ) Greenland was the only 1 to hold a referendum and with a 53% majority for leave ,they left ..........they didnt even have a second referendum ,how very undemocratic of them,now dont answer a question with a question please
      Some major corrections needed here. 3 territories of member states have left the EU or it's predecessor the EEC. Greenland left the EEC, before the EU came into being and before freedom of movement existed. My question is more than pertinent as the answer is that we are the first member state to leave the EU. As such, this is the first time ever a member state has threatened EU citizens with losing their homes. So the question is not only relevant but central to my answer. As my answer is that it is incomparable. Furthermore, why should I listen someone who doesn't respect me enough to read my evidence.

      LEGIO wrote:

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."
      And your answer is wrong, misinformed and has not addressed my point or provided any evidence for a counter rebuttal. Myself and @Wraith02 have provided evidence to show how accurate these polls are. That they match actual evidence from the results. Your handwaving is lazy and doesn't answer my point. You provide no evidence to show that voters in areas that have a younger/older population did not correlate with that area voting for Remain/Leave. That is deliberately ignoring evidence and furthermore you provided no evidence that people lied about their voting behaviour. In fact, your original anecdotal evidence was dismissed by someone who voted for Trump! And yet you still continue this prejudiced line of how young people lie about the way they vote.

      Doe it matter if it was 4 days ? ,4 weeks ? or 4 years ago?,the intention is there , but if you need some other lowly politicians saying the same .

      I am translating this as "no I did not read this relevant recent article which shows how impossible making a EU army is because that would involve critical thinking which I cannot do." Because you would have to be incredibly stupid to continue arguing for something that has been completely rebutted in the last post.......

      The government did not try and conceal the amount spent and the answer from the electoral commission was “We don’t think the government should have done it… [it gives Remain an] unfair advantage… undermines the principle [of spending limits]”

      So we agree that the government didn't break the law unlike the Leave campaign and therefore the two cases are not comparable as Leave committed the greater offence. So how do you feel about Brexit now it is clear that fraud was committed to achieve it?

      Did you also check who could vote in the referendum ? .I also agree that there was a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty and some guarantees where given by the EU to Ireland but i think that the future will tell whether they were lied to or not . Our great PM D. Cameron went and tried for some reforms before the UK referendum,he got nothing.
      Some Junker quotes .

      So you have no evidence for your points, just opinion. Therefore it is worthless, along with the alleged cherry picked Junker quotes. Your post is spam.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • Largenton wrote:

      So you have no evidence for your points, just opinion. Therefore it is worthless, along with the alleged cherry picked Junker quotes. Your post is spam.
      The evidence that remain lost the referendum is evident in the fact that there is only 39 days left before we leave with or without a withdrawal agreement in place, so the opinion of 52% is not worthless

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."
      telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…ious-you-have-to-lie.html

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
      telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews…-about-the-EU-treaty.html

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      express.co.uk/news/world/10878…ferendum-nigel-farage-spt



      Largenton wrote:

      So we agree that the government didn't break the law unlike the Leave campaign and therefore the two cases are not comparable as Leave committed the greater offence. So how do you feel about Brexit now it is clear that fraud was committed to achieve it?
      Please explain how the 1 is a greater offence than the other, the government put 9 million pounds in to influence the out come on the remain side and are told off by the electoral commission ,leave overspend by a fraction of that and are fined .


      Largenton wrote:

      I am translating this as "no I did not read this relevant recent article which shows how impossible making a EU army is because that would involve critical thinking which I cannot do." Because you would have to be incredibly stupid to continue arguing for something that has been completely rebutted in the last post.......

      So what youre actually saying is that your posted opinion counts but mine doesnt,how is it impossible to make an EU army ?

      GERMANY’S defence minister says an EU army is “already taking shape” as the bloc looks to deepen military cooperation between member states. Ursula Von der Leyen said Europe “needs to improve its ability to act on behalf of its own security” at a time of global uncertainty, adding major progress has been made towards realising a joint defence force.Like the development of the EU’s single market and free movement principle, developing a European army will take time, she said.



      express.co.uk/news/world/10703…e-pesco-uk-germany-france


      Largenton wrote:

      And your answer is wrong, misinformed and has not addressed my point or provided any evidence for a counter rebuttal. Myself and @Wraith02 have provided evidence to show how accurate these polls are. That they match actual evidence from the results. Your handwaving is lazy and doesn't answer my point. You provide no evidence to show that voters in areas that have a younger/older population did not correlate with that area voting for Remain/Leave. That is deliberately ignoring evidence and furthermore you provided no evidence that people lied about their voting behaviour. In fact, your original anecdotal evidence was dismissed by someone who voted for Trump! And yet you still continue this prejudiced line of how young people lie about the way they vote.
      Unless we now have every ballot paper identifying the voter then there is no factual evidence of what they really voted, i dont believe polls from young or old or anyone ..


      Largenton wrote:

      Some major corrections needed here. 3 territories of member states have left the EU or it's predecessor the EEC. Greenland left the EEC, before the EU came into being and before freedom of movement existed. My question is more than pertinent as the answer is that we are the first member state to leave the EU. As such, this is the first time ever a member state has threatened EU citizens with losing their homes. So the question is not only relevant but central to my answer. As my answer is that it is incomparable. Furthermore, why should I listen someone who doesn't respect me enough to read my evidence.

      The question was "Which EU country lets EU citizens vote in referendums ?" , i dont want your opinion of whether it was right or wrong ,your opinion is worthless just like mine .

      As you can see below the UKs rules are more lenient than Ireland ,We let the Irish and other commonwealth countries citizens vote in ours,also ex pats with less than 15 years out of the UK.

      At present, if you are an Irish citizen living abroad you cannot be entered on the Register of Electors. This means that you cannot vote in an election or referendum here in Ireland. The only exception to this is in the case of Irish officials on duty abroad (and their spouses or civil partners abroad with them) who may register on the Postal Voters List

      .The categories of voters and their voting rights are:
      citizensinformation.ie/en/movi…right_to_vote.html#l5ab58
      LEGIO PATRIA NOSTRA


    • LEGIO wrote:

      The evidence that remain lost the referendum is evident in the fact that there is only 39 days left before we leave with or without a withdrawal agreement in place, so the opinion of 52% is not worthless
      The first part is correct in 2016. However, it doesn't mention that electoral fraud was committed to achieve this. The second part remains to be seen as legally we can still stop the process of Brexit. To quote an old saying, a week is a long time in politics".


      LEGIO wrote:

      "When it becomes serious, you have to lie."
      Unverified quote. As you have provided no context in which Juncker said this or where, this is just blatant bias.


      LEGIO wrote:

      “Of course there will be transfers of sovereignty. But would I be intelligent to draw the attention of public opinion to this fact?,”
      Again, unverified quote. Not acceptable as evidence of him saying it.


      LEGIO wrote:

      “If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue’,”
      Again unverified and out of context. All you have as "evidence" is a bunch of journalists quoting one politician with no context. That's rumour. Also if I remember rightly against the rules of this board.


      LEGIO wrote:

      Please explain how the 1 is a greater offence than the other, the government put 9 million pounds in to influence the out come on the remain side and are told off by the electoral commission ,leave overspend by a fraction of that and are fined .
      Breaking the law is very bad ok? If you break the law you go to jail sometimes..... The Leave Campaigns broke the law not by just overspending, but concealing that they were working together (again against the rules) and obstructing the investigation into it. If you can't understand that I am praying you never get near our legal system. This is in contrast to the Electoral Commission saying "we're not happy with what you have done". And you seriously think they are comparable?


      LEGIO wrote:

      So what youre actually saying is that your posted opinion counts but mine doesnt,how is it impossible to make an EU army ?
      Do I need to repeat myself? If you read the article you would find out....... Look, here, I suggest that reading the article may help. I am not your mother, I'm not regurgitating something that you can find out by reading the article.


      LEGIO wrote:

      Unless we now have every ballot paper identifying the voter then there is no factual evidence of what they really voted, i dont believe polls from young or old or anyone ..
      I don't care if you believe the Earth is flat, you've provided no evidence for your viewpoint. The evidence is that younger people voted to remain and older people voted leave. This is from evidence not just provided by polls but other evidence which was provided earlier. Until you provide actual evidence for your viewpoint it is invalid.


      LEGIO wrote:

      The question was "Which EU country lets EU citizens vote in referendums ?" , i dont want your opinion of whether it was right or wrong ,your opinion is worthless just like mine .
      And I pointed out that not one other referendum has ever involved a EU member state leaving the EU. So it is incomparable. Especially as EU citizens are allowed to vote for MEPs, one would think there would be a case for voting in this referendum as it is a European issue.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • LEGIO wrote:

      But we ve had a second referendum ,please keep up,80 % of the electorate voted for parties that had leave the EU in the manifesto ,the remain parties like the SNP and Lib dems that offered a more truthful manifesto lost seats .
      I know this is a tiny error among a huge number of flawed and erroneous statements, but roughly 67% of the electorate voted in the last General Election. Of those, about 82% voted for Conservative or Labour (Who had a version of 'leave' with a ton of qualifiers in their manifesto) or approximately 55% of the electorate. General Elections, as you apparently don't know, aren't referenda, and are about a host of political topics. Wikipedia lists Brexit as 1/6 of major issues during the election, but it's not hard to figure out that Brexit, while a dominant subject, was not the deciding factor in a Conservative or Labour vote. As I said, it's one error in a sea of them, but it's an easy one and indicative of both your relationship to facts and style of arguments.
      52% of the people voted to leave ,this number included British ,Irish, Maltese and Cypriots and people who had been resident in other countries for less than 15 years.Those were the rules .
      Like above, this is a simple error. 52% (Rounded) of voters did vote leave - but in an election with roughly 72% turnout. "The people" also include the disenfranchised, whether due to citizenship status, age or other factors. A truthful statement would have been something like "37% of the electorate voted leave".
      How people say they voted and how they voted is completely un trustworthy.D. Trump is President of the United States but its very hard to find any who admit to voting for him.
      Errr... Have you looked at the Trump rallies? Again, this is such a simple statement to verify, even a 5-year-old kid with access to CNN could fact-check it for you. The myths about 'shy voters' are prevalent in almost every country, but so far not shown to be true.

      Oh and Clinton got approximately 3 million votes more than Trump (48% for Clinton vs. 46% for Trump), just while we're talking about how people vote and what is a plurality, majority or neither.
      (a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:
      “Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

      (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;
      (b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully
      detained;

      (c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection.”

      This was then added in the rattification of the Lisbon treaty .

      (b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:‘A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied only in the instances laid down in the law and inaccordance with its provisions…’.

      source
      oliverjanich.de/eu-death-penalty
      Yellow vests in France beware.
      I think you should re-read the provision. ECHR has explicitly banned the death penalty from all countries under its jurisdiction. You cannot be sentenced to death within any EU country. The governments of Europe are simply not allowed to kill any citizens. That's why the exceptions you cite here are referred to as instances where 'deprivation of life' is not 'regarded as' 'in contravention of this article'. Again, an incredibly simple check would reveal this.

      LEGIO wrote:

      In my opinion if people voted for a party that says they respect the referendum result ,they are voting for the implementation of the referendum ,if they wanted to rerun the referendum they would have voted for the Libs or SNP who promised that.Both of those parties lost seats .This argument makes sense to me .Conserative manifesto
      Exit the European single market and customs union but seek a "deep and special partnership" including comprehensive free trade and customs agreement
      bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39960311
      Labour manifesto
      Accept the EU referendum result and "build a close new relationship with the EU" prioritising jobs and and workers' rights
      bbc.co.uk/news/election-2017-39933116
      So you don't understand what parties, parliamentary elections, referenda, manifestos, or qualifiers are?
      Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.
      People don't lie about how they intent to vote. Polling in both the US presidential elections and the Brexit referendum was remarkably accurate; in both instances the polls show a close race. US polling absolutely nailed the popular vote, and predicted both the secure R/D states as well as those hanging in the balance. Getting polling that accurate in a system as byzantine as the US is actually a remarkable feat. The Brexit vote was clearly close. All polls has what's called a 'margin of error', which is the errors we would expect from perfectly random polling over a long time. As you only select e.g. 800-5.000 people for each poll, random selection of those respondents from the total electorate has to work out whether they are representative and, if not, how to weigh people. That means the 'ideal' MOE is usually on the lower end of the actual MOE. The MOE gives a range of likely actual responses from the entire population, rather than just the people selected for the poll. In a sense, it can be explained as the results that wouldn't surprise you, given the poll and what you know about the precision of it.

      Most polls had both leave and remain within their MOE. I went to bed expecting a slim Remain, but statistically speaking the polls indicated something more like a cointoss.

      clittle wrote:

      “Polls before the USA elections said Clinton would win .How many Americans you know that voted for trump ? ,Polls before the referendum were in favour of remain .who would have thought that the leave vote would win ? ,my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote and how they voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies.“

      To this... myself, my wife, my in-laws, several friends, a co-worker. I’m fact I know of more people that voted for Trump than I did Clinton. I would have voted for a juggling monkey that juggles his own poo before I would have voted for that lieing baby killer some people refer to as Hillary. Trump 2020!
      Well, you did vote for a juggling monkey smeared in its own poo, no need for a hypothetical there.
      To counter LEGIO's point, though, your candid admission here shows us that Trump supporters aren't the shy, silent fellows that LEGIO imagines. Which is also borne out at rallies, in polling and everywhere else. It's one of the loudest minorities I've ever encountered.

      LEGIO wrote:

      My answer is that a referendum ,like any secret ballot is secret,an exit poll cannot be relied on to determine the ages or sexes or minorities of any voting block and like i said before "my point is that people lie about how they intent to vote or have voted so i dont believe any of the poll companies."
      If that were true, exit polls would be unrelated to the result, and would be unusable when trying to predict future results. Nothing could be further from the truth. Exit polling gets results mostly right (Though some dramatic exceptions do of course exist), which is partly why news media can call elections before counting is over. Most people don't have any reason to lie in exit polls at all, which is kind of a core assumption you must provide an argument for.

      Exit polls can also be used by scholars working on predicting future elections, which means we have built both sophisicated mechanisms for checking the accuracy of polling and have tested models built on exit polls a number of times. It's good enough that assuming groups (Based on education, income bracket, sex, ethnicity etc.) will vote the same as they did in last election and update for changes in demographics and expected turnout is decent in lieu of actual polling. I did a simple verison of this when I ran for city council back in 2013, and was 1 seat (Out of 27) off from the actual election result.

      You have let your opinions shape your evaluation of evidence, rather than letting evidence shape your opinions. That has lead you to distort reality to an alarming degree. Going down this garden path has also resulted in a large number of easy errors on your part, sometimes so easy that children with object permanence and access to CNN would know better than you.
      Destiny will Prevail.
      aka Chu, Chuwie, Chuthlhu, Legend Reborn, LR. Mod, GMod, NoAlly Alumni, Doctor of Evil, Ph.D., Baron of Roleplay, Viscount of Discussion, OBE.
      Nostalgia - it's not what it used to be.
    • It's interesting @LEGIO you were dismissive of our argument that the Leave side broke the law / lied.. now part of your argument is that the UK government "over spent" and that it wasn't fair..
      One thing you miss out was that the UK Government wasn't actually one of the groups campaigning for either side. What they did do with the leaflets, was provide information to the public based on all the experts views on what could happen, something that a lot of people were crying out for.
      Both campaigns still had their full budget to spend as per electoral laws, it's just a number of Pro-Brexit groups chose to break those laws, and failed to cooperate with any of the investigation into their practices.. which if they were innocent if they had claimed, just showed they had something to hide.

      So which is it, either it doesn't matter - in which case you can't cry foul about the leaflets.. or it does.. in which case you have to admit that the lies, and fraud did have an impact on the outcome.. thus impacting the democratic process.

      --

      On a different note.. not quite on topic, but could have an impact on Brexit.
      With the announcement that 3 Tory members have left the group today, it actually takes them below the "simple" majority required to maintain a government (this includes the 10 from the DUP) - 326. But not below the "realistic" majority yet (since the speakers seat doesn't count and Senn Fein don't take their seats) of 323.
      Will we see any more leave the Tory Government? and will it tip them under the required number to run the government?


      If this happens, and if a General Election is called, will it delay Brexit until the GE is done and a new government formed? Or will we see the Tories bribe another party to keep their majority?

      Edit:
      Further checking shows that losing the majority won't automatically start a General Election.. only if they lose a No Confidence vote..

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.

      The post was edited 2 times, last by Wraith02 ().

    • That is an interesting problem with the defections. Whilst Labour have had more defections, this isn't as much as a consequence in contrast to the Tories. To see how this will play out will be interesting indeed.

      Going back to a very interesting point, the fact of the matter is that it is extremely scary that people are not as concerned as they should be that the Leave campaign broke the law. Indeed, usually we get Leave supporters highlighting minor overspending or these leaflets. Yet the law was broken to obtain this win and it was done in a way which suggests corruption of the democratic process. Why exactly is this being ignored?

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • Guess no one that read this thread had anything to say about it since then @Largenton

      I find it interesting that the petition to revoke Article 50 has gotten so many signatures in just a matter of days.
      petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584
      It's now at 4.1 million (it was around 400 thousand when I signed it on Thursday).

      On social media, and BBC news comments, I still see people claiming it would be undemocratic to offer the country another vote.. but never give a good response to the fact of the lies, broken laws.. and Farage.. Or how it's any different to Teresa May putting the same deal to Parliament for what could be a 3rd time (where as we have new, concrete information about what Brexit means, rather then just the dream of a few greedy Tories/UKIPers). It's always Remoaner this, or loser that.

      If the Lies, Misinformation, Broken Law and Farage is the democracy that the majority of the UK wants.. then I truly have lost faith in Democracy.. and this Country.

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • I have to agree there. Currently that petition is 4.2 million signatures, which is 6.3% of the population signing it. It is the biggest petition signed to date on the government website, dwarfing the No Deal petition which is about 450 000 signatures. However, I suspect that it will be ignored because it doesn't fit the current ideology. And this is the thing. There is a strong, reasoned argument stating that the referendum was flawed, corrupted, etc. That new information calls for a new vote. But there hasn't been one proper counter argument. Political inertia seems to be ignoring important facts.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • there's a march in London calling for a second vote bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47678763

      And sadly, the creator of the revoke A50 petition has has been receiving death threats, threats over social media, and had her FB account hacked..
      bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-47678275


      I hope anyone who thinks such behavior is acceptable is caught and put behind bars.


      and on a different note - today's anti-brexit song (though it wasn't written as one a decade ago) comes from an old friends band Emphyrian

      emphyrian.bandcamp.com/track/into-the-fray

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • Yes, I had friends that went on the march (I am ill at the moment, so I was unable to attend, plus I was dog sitting). There were a million people roughly that went on the march.

      Furthermore, the petition has now reached 4.8 million. This, along with the march shows clear resentment of an authoritarian decision that has been made without the consent of over half the population.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • I think there are three issues with the petition and another vote that Remainers should be able to answer:
      - What should be voted on? The original Brexit question was "easy" insofar that the ballot itself was uncomplicated, but neither remain nor leave had any conditions specified; something that ended up being fairly relevant when it turned out that voting 'leave' might have been a proxy for a host of at times opposing desired policies.
      - Should the vote be binding? A non-binding vote still leaves it up to Parliament, but a binding vote changes UK Parliamentary sovereignty and both would seem like the elites asking the people the same question until they get the answer they want - which also happened with Denmark and Ireland, while legal workarounds negated the French and Dutch treaty-votes. There's a history of votes on EU-treaties "done over" that any Remainer may want to avoid (If nothing else because it plays directly into the 'elitist, non-democratic EU'-type arguments).
      - What would stop Leavers from also gathering 1+M signatures for another referendum? Recall that 4M votes is still 1/4 of those who voted Remain in the referendum; both sides have mobilized 16+M voters before. Would another EU referendum be held each time either side got some number of million signatures? If not, what democratic or legal argument would you make?
      Destiny will Prevail.
      aka Chu, Chuwie, Chuthlhu, Legend Reborn, LR. Mod, GMod, NoAlly Alumni, Doctor of Evil, Ph.D., Baron of Roleplay, Viscount of Discussion, OBE.
      Nostalgia - it's not what it used to be.
    • Firstly..
      facebook.com/Reasons2Remain/posts/791075901251781
      Another clip (from BBC Question Time) showing just how out of touch key brexiteers (Rees-Moog) really are =/

      -

      1. That's a difficult one, part of me says it should just be the 3 votes on a ballot - May-deal, No Deal and Remain. but that would unfairly dilute the leavers vote. I suppose otherwise it could be done over potentially 2 sessions - first vote being to remain, or continue to leave. Which if leave still wins, would lead to another vote a week later about wither it should be No-Deal or May-deal (or any other credible options that might pop up between now and then..).

      2. Half the problem with the last vote was that it wasn't binding, which allowed the result to stand despite the breach of electoral law etc that is well documented in this thread. Then there was the fact of it not requiring a overall majority, rather then the simple majority it asked for (something so big should never have been down single digit percentage to win.. it should have required at least a 60% for one side to be declared the winner.
      Like the other question, Part of me wants to see another vote done properly - requiring a majority and be binging (also making any further law breaks have actual consequences not just paltry fines). The other side says keep the conditions the same as the previous one.. either way it won't stop people calling foul (whether there is evidence or not) after it.

      3. Many people argue that it would already be the 3rd EU vote - including the 1975 one.
      Otherwise - I'll point out that it was a Leaver that first brought up the idea of a second vote not to mention the first petition for a second referendum if there wasn't a clear winner came from a leaver as well.

      It's not just a case of having a second vote to change the first one, it would be a second vote 1. To confirm that it is still "the will of the people" (dear Cthulhu I despise that saying..) and 2. To see what the public thinks is the right way forward - it's clear the MP's are completely divided about how to proceed, and I don't blame them.. the entire process has been a mess since it was brought up by Cameron.

      P.s the revoke A50 is now at 5.43m signatures.. that's at least 5.33m within 5 days (based on the parliament will consider it for debate when it reaches 100k info..).

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • Hard questions, but I suspect me and Wraith may have similar answers....

      1. Indeed, the thought of what we should be voting on if there is a second referendum should be borne in mind. At the moment there are three main options. Remain, May's Deal or No Deal. For fairness sake we should consider like Wraith has suggested, first voting on whether we should leave the EU and then if we do vote for Leave, May's Deal or No Deal. And this is a bit of a concession as it stops the Leavers complaining about splitting the vote.

      2. Keeping it the same again may be the best solution. Whilst having it as binding may force Parliament to carry it out, the non-binding aspects may stop any accusations of crying foul because it wasn't the same.

      3. I suspect that there might not be the political will or the actual supporters fervent enough to do so. Bear in mind that the people that really want to leave the EU are in far smaller numbers when organising than the Remain supporters. This could be because they may think they are having their way, but for now, once this is over, healing the rifts caused by this idiocy is essential.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • Largenton wrote:

      once this is over, healing the rifts caused by this idiocy is essential.
      I think this is the key part.. and something none of the political parties (that I've seen) have even started to begin.

      I think what ever happens, there is going to be resentment from either side.. either from "breaking democracy" (though, democracy's been broken since the vote..) or for the mess that will be Brexit.
      No ones seriously looked at the root causes of the issues, and how to unit the country again.

      The sky is not the limit it is only the genesis of dreams.
    • Wraith02 wrote:

      1. That's a difficult one, part of me says it should just be the 3 votes on a ballot - May-deal, No Deal and Remain. but that would unfairly dilute the leavers vote. I suppose otherwise it could be done over potentially 2 sessions - first vote being to remain, or continue to leave. Which if leave still wins, would lead to another vote a week later about wither it should be No-Deal or May-deal (or any other credible options that might pop up between now and then..).
      While I'm not adverse to talking the mechanics of voting (Though look up Instant Runoff, that'll do what you want), the reason I put my question in contrast to the original vote was to avoid a vote where many people could clearly (And with good reason!) vote the same and yet vehemently disagree on what policy implications they voted on. One of the flaws of the Brexit vote was what people interpreted 'Leave' as; with a deal (What kind of deal? A deal that is even possible?), without a deal, simply a protest vote... If you (The plural "you who want a second referendum") want another referendum to solve anything, you'll need to be able to answer not just the technical aspect of vote order, but also what to vote on in substance and how to actually have a debate on the implications thereof.
      That's not an easy ask, but it will avoid waking up another time realising that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what was meant by, essentially, a "yes/no" vote.

      2. Half the problem with the last vote was that it wasn't binding, which allowed the result to stand despite the breach of electoral law etc that is well documented in this thread.
      I honestly don't think a binding vote would have changed that, or that the results would have been thrown out because of electoral law breaches had the vote been binding. To me, the issue with it being non-binding is that it left the responsibility to fulfill mutually contradictory desires as voted on by 52% of a population to politicians who had their own set of conflicting agendas.
      The question, however, is about the next vote: Should that mandate the government some action or clear, coherent course? And are you ready to also discuss the constitutional implications of voiding parliamentary sovereignty?
      Then there was the fact of it not requiring a overall majority, rather then the simple majority it asked for (something so big should never have been down single digit percentage to win.. it should have required at least a 60% for one side to be declared the winner.
      That would have left you in a fine mess had it been Remain 55, Leave 45. You're also responding to a question about a hypothetical vote in the future by replaying a vote in the past.
      Like the other question, Part of me wants to see another vote done properly - requiring a majority and be binging (also making any further law breaks have actual consequences not just paltry fines). The other side says keep the conditions the same as the previous one.. either way it won't stop people calling foul (whether there is evidence or not) after it.
      There's a difference in what legitimate reasons people would have to call foul, though. Redoing the vote with clear, unambiguous choices (Say something like "leave with the deal as negotiated; leave without any further negotiations or deal; retract article 50") and the same rules will not be unreasonable given the deadlock in Parliament. Changing the rules 'mid-game' so to speak is dangerous territory.

      3. Many people argue that it would already be the 3rd EU vote - including the 1975 one.
      Otherwise - I'll point out that it was a Leaver that first brought up the idea of a second vote not to mention the first petition for a second referendum if there wasn't a clear winner came from a leaver as well.

      It's not just a case of having a second vote to change the first one, it would be a second vote 1. To confirm that it is still "the will of the people" (dear Cthulhu I despise that saying..) and 2. To see what the public thinks is the right way forward - it's clear the MP's are completely divided about how to proceed, and I don't blame them.. the entire process has been a mess since it was brought up by Cameron.
      I think it's fair to return to the voters with the negotiated deal, but then again parliamentary sovereignty is a foreign concept to me. My question, however, is what arguments you might have to make this vote last. Or, to put it in blunt and provocative terms, how would you avoid the Leavers collecting a million signatures or more and start the whole process over again?

      Largenton wrote:

      Hard questions, but I suspect me and Wraith may have similar answers....

      1. Indeed, the thought of what we should be voting on if there is a second referendum should be borne in mind. At the moment there are three main options. Remain, May's Deal or No Deal. For fairness sake we should consider like Wraith has suggested, first voting on whether we should leave the EU and then if we do vote for Leave, May's Deal or No Deal. And this is a bit of a concession as it stops the Leavers complaining about splitting the vote.
      I think my response to Wraith re. 1. applies here as well.

      2. Keeping it the same again may be the best solution. Whilst having it as binding may force Parliament to carry it out, the non-binding aspects may stop any accusations of crying foul because it wasn't the same.
      I agree.

      3. I suspect that there might not be the political will or the actual supporters fervent enough to do so. Bear in mind that the people that really want to leave the EU are in far smaller numbers when organising than the Remain supporters. This could be because they may think they are having their way, but for now, once this is over, healing the rifts caused by this idiocy is essential.
      You're supposing that less than 1/17 of the people who voted Leave will sign a petition to have their original vote honoured. I don't think that's a reasonable belief, but neither of us can predict the future. Still, say that you're wrong, and in a few days after Article 50 is withdrawn, 1-2-3 million Leavers sign a petition. What do you do?
      Destiny will Prevail.
      aka Chu, Chuwie, Chuthlhu, Legend Reborn, LR. Mod, GMod, NoAlly Alumni, Doctor of Evil, Ph.D., Baron of Roleplay, Viscount of Discussion, OBE.
      Nostalgia - it's not what it used to be.
    • I thought I would cover the relevant points.

      1. Instant run off. If we are agreeing to point 2, then surely the point is to make things as similar as possible to determine if minds have been changed. Therefore if one vote was to Remain (which the campaign would to be keep things as our current terms are) or Leave, with a follow up vote of the options say May's Deal or No Deal, then this would provide clarity yes?

      3. The question is, can Leave provide enough support to do such a thing and provide at least 5 739 322 signatures (at this time) within 6 days? Certainly the efforts of leave marches, petitions, etc, have not matched those that Remain have done.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......
    • Largenton wrote:

      I thought I would cover the relevant points.

      1. Instant run off. If we are agreeing to point 2, then surely the point is to make things as similar as possible to determine if minds have been changed. Therefore if one vote was to Remain (which the campaign would to be keep things as our current terms are) or Leave, with a follow up vote of the options say May's Deal or No Deal, then this would provide clarity yes?
      Not exactly. 'Leave', in the first vote, would be unclear (Again, you're voting for two mutually exclusive options to be determined at a later date) and it would force people to vote strategically if they have ordered preferences. In the choice (Remain | (Deal | No deal), if you cannot accept the No Deal option but do want to vote for the Deal (Essentially ranking Deal > Remain > No Deal), a Remain vote would be a safer bet to avoid the unacceptable outcome. An instant runoff would solve both (You can rank your preferences and no option is ambiguous or left undefined).
      However, as I said earlier, "remain", "leave", "this deal/that deal" or "no deal" are easy questions to write down, but as soon as you go beyond the technical mechanics of the vote, you risk issues:

      The Abjuration of Joy wrote:

      While I'm not adverse to talking the mechanics of voting (Though look up Instant Runoff, that'll do what you want), the reason I put my question in contrast to the original vote was to avoid a vote where many people could clearly (And with good reason!) vote the same and yet vehemently disagree on what policy implications they voted on. One of the flaws of the Brexit vote was what people interpreted 'Leave' as; with a deal (What kind of deal? A deal that is even possible?), without a deal, simply a protest vote... If you (The plural "you who want a second referendum") want another referendum to solve anything, you'll need to be able to answer not just the technical aspect of vote order, but also what to vote on in substance and how to actually have a debate on the implications thereof.
      That's not an easy ask, but it will avoid waking up another time realising that reasonable people can reasonably disagree on what was meant by, essentially, a "yes/no" vote.

      3. The question is, can Leave provide enough support to do such a thing and provide at least 5 739 322 signatures (at this time) within 6 days? Certainly the efforts of leave marches, petitions, etc, have not matched those that Remain have done.
      I don't think that's the question, to be honest: You're arguing that a petition that is signed by less than the number who voted already should overturn the decision voted on. Any number of signers below 16 million can be those who already voted to Remain (And lost the vote, however unfair or illegal you might think it was, to the 17M who voted Leave). That was why I asked how to make the vote you want last; what argument would you make against a subsequent Leave petition campaign? AFAIK it's 100.000 votes to have a hearing in Parliament, right? 1/170 of the Leave voters can get that. Certainly, I don't know how many Leavers might want to sign a petition, but I expect the number to be more than 0,5%. As I put it to you before:

      The Abjuration of Joy wrote:

      (...) say that you're wrong, and in a few days after Article 50 is withdrawn, 1-2-3 million Leavers sign a petition. What do you do?
      Or, as I asked Wraith:

      The Abjuration of Joy wrote:

      to put it in blunt and provocative terms, how would you avoid the Leavers collecting a million signatures or more and start the whole process over again?
      Destiny will Prevail.
      aka Chu, Chuwie, Chuthlhu, Legend Reborn, LR. Mod, GMod, NoAlly Alumni, Doctor of Evil, Ph.D., Baron of Roleplay, Viscount of Discussion, OBE.
      Nostalgia - it's not what it used to be.
    • Sorry for the long wait Chuwie, I haven't been in the right mind, so let us get down to brass tacks.....

      The Abjuration of Joy wrote:

      Not exactly. 'Leave', in the first vote, would be unclear (Again, you're voting for two mutually exclusive options to be determined at a later date) and it would force people to vote strategically if they have ordered preferences. In the choice (Remain | (Deal | No deal), if you cannot accept the No Deal option but do want to vote for the Deal (Essentially ranking Deal > Remain > No Deal), a Remain vote would be a safer bet to avoid the unacceptable outcome. An instant runoff would solve both (You can rank your preferences and no option is ambiguous or left undefined).
      However, as I said earlier, "remain", "leave", "this deal/that deal" or "no deal" are easy questions to write down, but as soon as you go beyond the technical mechanics of the vote, you risk issues:

      Interestingly enough, I think this is what Parliament is currently trying to do with the indicative votes, see here. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any movement towards a definitive answer and as such No Deal looks to be the default option ;(

      Hopefully, something will emerge from this in time. Although I am not being optimistic here.


      The Abjuration of Joy wrote:

      I don't think that's the question, to be honest: You're arguing that a petition that is signed by less than the number who voted already should overturn the decision voted on. Any number of signers below 16 million can be those who already voted to Remain (And lost the vote, however unfair or illegal you might think it was, to the 17M who voted Leave). That was why I asked how to make the vote you want last; what argument would you make against a subsequent Leave petition campaign? AFAIK it's 100.000 votes to have a hearing in Parliament, right? 1/170 of the Leave voters can get that. Certainly, I don't know how many Leavers might want to sign a petition, but I expect the number to be more than 0,5%. As I put it to you before:

      I'm not arguing that, oh this petition means that we should do what they say, it is only a petition. Instead I am only arguing that the petition shows an unprecedented amount of people petitioning Parliament to consider this option. The Leave Campaigns have not mustered this popularity and whilst they have had a petition to put towards Parliament, it is less than 1/10 of this for No Deal. This is merely pointing out the support for Remain at this present time, it is not a mandate.

      NoMoreAngel wrote:

      Nobody of the still active, not newly registered people, except maybe Cass and bibob will miss you
      Not sure a BA should say this.......