Brexit, for once some facts.

[oldgroaner]

.. calling Woosh a liar was uncalled for and should be apologised. He had merely repeated the fact not factoid, that the majority of people who voted 8 months ago did vote to leave. A wafer thin majority to be sure , but a majority

You are falling into tillson's bad habit of reading the interpretation you want into the written word I repeat it for you to reconsider
"The problem with your statement is that 68% of the country didn't vote for brexit, care to try another lie?"

Now then exactly how do you put the "spin" on that that to make out I called Woosh a liar?
Quite clearly I stated that the statement he made was a lie and his statement was
"the problem for you, oldtom and OG, is that you cannot get your head around the fact that half the country still wants out."
Since half on the country did not want out, that statement is clearly untrue, which makes it a lie to present it as factual.
He therefore repeated a lie, and how can you argue with that? the truth is that only 68% voted to leave the EU, and rather interestingly 69% in favour will be required for the EU to ratify their vote on the terms offered to us, not the miniscule 4.8% victory the leave campaign achieved.
This is too small a margin, and even then only that of a FACTION of the population, far too small a mandate for change on a monumental scale.
The normal requirement for a mandate as serious as this is pretty much as the EU has chosed for the negotiation over the break up, not the derisory 4.8% Referendum margin of victory.
The result should have been declared inconclusive and discarded.

 

[oldgroaner]

Flecc, OG, oldtom, KTM are all fighting the last battle instead of concentrating on the next battle, which party will be at the helm.
The tories are the only party where the majority of its membership wants to leave. If you want so much to stay, then fight the tories.
Put yourselves up for election next time.

PS: and also tell Mr Corbyn to go.

The next battle is to rejoin the EU and eventually the United States of Europe, nothing else is worth the effort.
Why perpetuate a totally failed and outdated political system that doesn't serve the people, never has and never will.

 

[oldgroaner]

We are apparently seeking trade deals with these people
"
Saudi Arabia 'war crimes' examined by Metropolitan Police as Theresa May prepares to visit on trade mission
UN human rights office says Saudi-led air campaign has killed more than 2,000 civilians
Needs must for holy Brexit
Brexit: red in tooth and claw

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

Flecc, OG, oldtom, KTM are all fighting the last battle instead of concentrating on the next battle, which party will be at the helm.
The tories are the only party where the majority of its membership wants to leave. If you want so much to stay, then fight the tories.
Put yourselves up for election next time.

PS: and also tell Mr Corbyn to go.

Can't speak for the others but I for one am happy fighting the battle currently. Just because A50 has been triggered doesn't mean we're leaving.

Its the start of the battle.

Now all we have to do is give parliament enough confidence that the will of the people is not to leave the EU, and it'll result in A50 will be cancelled quicker than you can say... waste time and money.

 

[Danidl]

You are falling into tillson's bad habit of reading the interpretation you want into the written word I repeat it for you to reconsider
"The problem with your statement is that 68% of the country didn't vote for brexit, care to try another lie?"

Now then exactly how do you put the "spin" on that that to make out I called Woosh a liar?
Quite clearly I stated that the statement he made was a lie and his statement was
"the problem for you, oldtom and OG, is that you cannot get your head around the fact that half the country still wants out."
Since half on the country did not want out, that statement is clearly untrue, which makes it a lie to present it as factual.
He therefore repeated a lie, and how can you argue with that? the truth is that only 68% voted to leave the EU, and rather interestingly 69% in favour will be required for the EU to ratify their vote on the terms offered to us, not the miniscule 4.8% victory the leave campaign achieved.
This is too small a margin, and even then only that of a FACTION of the population, far too small a mandate for change on a monumental scale.
The normal requirement for a mandate as serious as this is pretty much as the EU has chosed for the negotiation over the break up, not the derisory 4.8% Referendum margin of victory.
The result should have been declared inconclusive and discarded.

... The clue was in the words " try another lie" for the reference to liar.. It is for that you should apologize. He had repeated the fact that of those eligible to vote a majority had voted.
More importantly and in the context that your country has a representative democracy, he could have claimed that an overwhelming majority had voted leave, as that was the result from the Commons

I do concur with the remainder of your analysis that a decision of such magnitude as brexit should have been handled differently with cost benefit analysis, white papers and at a minimum a double majority. But your country decided otherwise. As an outsider I was astonished by the feebleness of the debate in both of your houses of parliament, and particularly the supine position of the.Opposition
For the record, I think that Brexit in whatever terms it proceeds, is a disastrous decision and it only now remains to minimise the damage to the UK and western Europe.

 

[Woosh]

Can't speak for the others but I for one am happy fighting the battle currently.

I suspect you do because of your intention to vote for the LibDems.
They and the Greens seem to be the only pro EU parties at the moment.

 

[oldtom]

.. calling Woosh a liar was uncalled for and should be apologised. He had merely repeated the fact not factoid, that the majority of people who voted 8 months ago did vote to leave. A wafer thin majority to be sure , but a majority

I disagree 'Danidl'. 'Woosh' is guilty of one of the major problems we suffer in this oligarchy which presents itself as a democracy. He does what many other anti-EU types have been doing since the beginning of this fiasco in that he regurgitates the lies and headline propaganda from the government's media wing, aka the British press and audio/visual media.

Everyone should be aware by now that the nation was fed a diet of lies from the proponents of 'Brexit' with regard to the referendum. Those lies were continued post - referendum, all through the government's vacillating about what 'Brexit' might mean and even now, following activation of the signal A50 provisions, the picture projected about the post-'Brexit' economy and general state of the nation looks gloomy at best and disastrous at worst.

For anyone to continue with such drivel now about the kind of numbers that supported secession last June, is simply to excuse their ignorance of what has actually happened since and what is likely to happen over the next couple of years. The statistics reveal the truth about the voting details last June, besides which we know that had the result been reversed, the 'Brexit' proponents would have pursued their campaign further. Farage, indeed, made reference to the margin after the event.

The point about lies is that it seems to be endemic among the 'Brexit' fans and they use it to fortify their morale in the absence of any plan for a post-'Brexit' future. Of course, all of this becomes academic if we find ourselves on a war footing with one or all of our current EU partners a little further down the road. The British have never been great fans of international diplomacy without the threat of a gunboat!

Tom

 

[gray198]

... The clue was in the words " try another lie" for the reference to liar.. It is for that you should apologize. He had repeated the fact that of those eligible to vote a majority had voted.
More importantly and in the context that your country has a representative democracy, he could have claimed that an overwhelming majority had voted leave, as that was the result from the Commons

I do concur with the remainder of your analysis that a decision of such magnitude as brexit should have been handled differently with cost benefit analysis, white papers and at a minimum a double majority. But your country decided otherwise. As an outsider I was astonished by the feebleness of the debate in both of your houses of parliament, and particularly the supine position of the.Opposition
For the record, I think that Brexit in whatever terms it proceeds, is a disastrous decision and it only now remains to minimise the damage to the UK and western Europe.

Simple fact is that the referendum was done in such a slapdash and incompetent manner is because Cameron expected it to be a walkover for Remain. I think that it should have been done with a qualifying percentage, but it wasn't. All the quoting of statistics about how many voted just smacks of desperation. I suppose you could apply the same logic to any general election. The referendum had a much higher turnout. Maybe they should be made compulsory.

 

[Woosh]

old tom, if you get back to your first question of the day:

How are the Tories so far ahead in the polls?

Another wording may be 'Why are the tories so far ahead in the polls?'

As usual, if you don't like someone's answer, you get back to your comfort zone, quoting the AAV blog.
Believe me, there is hope outside the AAV blog.
I shudder at the thought that you may get ill and have to trust your life in the hands of the brexitidiots.
Get out there and have a little faith in your fellow compatriots.

 

[tillson]

You are falling into tillson's bad habit of reading the interpretation you want into the written word I repeat it for you to reconsider
"The problem with your statement is that 68% of the country didn't vote for brexit, care to try another lie?"

Now then exactly how do you put the "spin" on that that to make out I called Woosh a liar?
Quite clearly I stated that the statement he made was a lie and his statement was
"the problem for you, oldtom and OG, is that you cannot get your head around the fact that half the country still wants out."
Since half on the country did not want out, that statement is clearly untrue, which makes it a lie to present it as factual.
He therefore repeated a lie, and how can you argue with that? the truth is that only 68% voted to leave the EU, and rather interestingly 69% in favour will be required for the EU to ratify their vote on the terms offered to us, not the miniscule 4.8% victory the leave campaign achieved.
This is too small a margin, and even then only that of a FACTION of the population, far too small a mandate for change on a monumental scale.
The normal requirement for a mandate as serious as this is pretty much as the EU has chosed for the negotiation over the break up, not the derisory 4.8% Referendum margin of victory.
The result should have been declared inconclusive and discarded.

The referendum asked two questions, do we want to remain within the EU or do we want to leave the EU. Roughly 70% of the population did not vote to remain in the EU, and as you point out, about 68% didn't vote to leave. So where does analysing what was not voted for take us? Nowhere.

Refers to actual result of votes cast.

 

[flecc]

So where does analysing what was not voted for take us?

31 millions, almost half the country and nearly double those who voted to leave, took no voting action in the referendum. One can fairly assume they had no interest in changing the status quo.

That's what the analysis exposes.
.

 

[tillson]

31 millions, almost half the country and nearly double those who voted to leave, took no voting action in the referendum. One can fairly assume they had no interest in changing the status quo.

That's what the analysis exposes.
.

I don't think we can say that they are happy with the statue quo. I think it is safer to say that they had no opinion either way. (There are many of them with no opinion and I find that troubling).

I think that if a person is motivated by the case for leave or remain, they will cast their vote to reflect that. To not vote does not endorse remain or leave.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

 

[Woosh]

31 millions, almost half the country and nearly double those who voted to leave, took no voting action in the referendum.

actually, only 46.5 millions were allowed to vote. 33.5 millions voted.
Only 13 millions, not 31, were allowed to vote but didn't for one reason or another.
The fairest way is to assume that only cast votes count.

 

[flecc]

I don't think we can say that they are happy with the statue quo.

But I didn't say they were happy with the status quo, only that they had no interest in changing it.

Rather like me receiving an offer to change my electricity supplier and not bothering to accept because I'm not interested in any possible gain. That is sufficient to indicate I'm content to stay as I am, but is in no way an indication that I think a change would be good.

That means the 31 millions who didn't vote are biased strongly to it being not worth bothering to change but show no bias to leaving.
.

 

[flecc]

actually, only 46.5 millions were allowed to vote. 33.5 millions voted.
Only 13 millions, not 31, were allowed to vote but didn't for one reason or another.

The principle remains that the great majority either voted to remain or were not interested in change, expressing no interest in leaving.

That is a clear majority to remain in the EU, the true referendum result.
.

 

[Woosh]

e principle remains that the great majority either voted to leave or were not interested in change, expressing no interest in leaving.

if that were the basis then it would have been written into the act - a strong majority is required, not a simple majority. Our parliament voted to enable the referendum with a simple majority.
The outcome of the referendum though is resolved by the High Court decision to hand back decision and control to parliament which subsequently enacted Article 50.
Democracy is served. The next battle is as I said, if you don't like brexit, kick the tories out. The next non-tory government may then call another referendum.

 

[KTM Bike Industries UK]

if that were the basis then it would have been written into the act - a strong majority is required, not a simple majority. Our parliament voted to enable the referendum with a simple majority.

This is another of the myths leavers seem to want to believe. Our Parliament didn't vote to enable the referendum.

They voted on this basis.

The crucial part of the act that was voted upon is highlighted nicely in yellow for you.

It was only during the run up to the referendum that the politicians who were also the ones making a host of other promises / lies, decided that they'd change it.

When they voted on the referendum it was only every advisory.

Fact, I'm afraid.

 

[flecc]

if that were the basis then it would have been written into the act - a strong majority is required, not a simple majority.

I agree the basis of the referendum was wrong, but I don't like anyone thinking the majority were in favour of leaving.

They weren't, as I've illustrated a clear and large majority expressed no such desire, while acting in one way or another for the status quo, remaining.
.

 

[Woosh]

The crucial part of the act that was voted upon is highlighted nicely in yellow for you.

I did know that the referendum is advisory, Kudosdave made that point much earlier in this debate and the Supreme Court was right to confirm parliament is sovereign in this matter, not the government.
When I said 'democracy is served' meaning it's parliament that enacted the A50 bill, not the tory government ramrodded the A50 through.