|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 14:54:05 GMT
Preserving democracy by not having any more democracy? So coherent. Much logic. Wow. You also seem troubled by maths, so here goes; tories won 317 seats at the last election. This did not give them a 317 seat majority. Similarly, saying 17.4m over and over and over and over does not mean anything because what matters is the majority. You have to net off the disagreement. What you are doing is terrible maths. So coherent. Much logic. Wow. If you know more remain voters that would switch than vice versa why would you be so concerned? You’ll win easily and we’ll have more sovereignty than we’ll know what to do with, almost certainly literally. Best of three? best of five? Double or quits? At what point do we draw the line? Do you know what informed consent is? Also we’ve already had two and it’s one each so I guess best of three yeah.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 11, 2019 15:01:10 GMT
Best of three? best of five? Double or quits? At what point do we draw the line? Do you know what informed consent is? Also we’ve already had two and it’s one each so I guess best of three yeah. Do you know how a vote works?
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 15:16:05 GMT
Do you know what informed consent is? Also we’ve already had two and it’s one each so I guess best of three yeah. Do you know how a vote works? Generally you have two equal comparable proposals and people choose between them. This one wasn’t like that though. It was abstract (whatever brexit you would like) v concrete (the status quo). Ref: whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-there-was-a-referendum-on-whether-to-leave-the-eu-without-a-deal-or-leave-with-boris-johnsons-deal/ There’s any number of polls that basically show the same thing, some people want to leave whatever, some people want to leave with a deal and some people want to stay. It probably seemed great tactics at the time to not define brexit and capture all these votes, but that is now the biggest obstacle to leaving. Ultimately, if we leave on the basis of a logically flawed referendum, the result will never be accepted by people that want to stay, and they will continue to say we should have another vote. If there’s another vote and leave wins again on a concrete proposal, people who want to stay will accept it. If remain wins, people don’t want to leave and we shouldn’t be leaving. The only way to resolve this is by going back to the people to check on something concrete. It kills any argument either way stone dead.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 11, 2019 15:35:35 GMT
Do you know how a vote works? Generally you have two equal comparable proposals and people choose between them. This one wasn’t like that though. It was abstract (whatever brexit you would like) v concrete (the status quo). Ref: whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-there-was-a-referendum-on-whether-to-leave-the-eu-without-a-deal-or-leave-with-boris-johnsons-deal/ There’s any number of polls that basically show the same thing, some people want to leave whatever, some people want to leave with a deal and some people want to stay. It probably seemed great tactics at the time to not define brexit and capture all these votes, but that is now the biggest obstacle to leaving. Ultimately, if we leave on the basis of a logically flawed referendum, the result will never be accepted by people that want to stay, and they will continue to say we should have another vote. If there’s another vote and leave wins again on a concrete proposal, people who want to stay will accept it. If remain wins, people don’t want to leave and we shouldn’t be leaving. The only way to resolve this is by going back to the people to check on something concrete. It kills any argument either way stone dead. The only people who seem to think it was flawed are the remain campaign, funny that. We all know what happened, both sides of the house never in their worst nightmares ever expected to lose the vote to the British public, in fairness neither did i. They've then spent the last three years trying any and every way possible to convince anyone that will listen that the vote was wrong, the campaign was illegal, the voters were stupid etc in the hope that eventually the British publics resolve would fold and the EU gravy train can get back on the tracks. I still believe it will never be allowed to happen and for the sake of democracy that would be wrong. It may turn out to be the worst decision the British public ever made, it might turn out to be the case with the politicians we currently have at our disposal, but we have to be allowed to see if it is or not.
|
|
|
Post by Pyongyang Bantam on Nov 11, 2019 15:36:05 GMT
Yeah thats kinda how democracy works. Majority wins. In any case i know more remain voters that would vote leave than vice versa. Preserving democracy is more important them than short term economic disruption. The media just amplifies the pro EU fanatics and activists, rather than focus on coherent arguments. Maybe you need to get out of your bubble. Preserving democracy by not having any more democracy? So coherent. Much logic. Wow. You also seem troubled by maths, so here goes; tories won 317 seats at the last election. This did not give them a 317 seat majority. Similarly, saying 17.4m over and over and over and over does not mean anything because what matters is the majority. You have to net off the disagreement. What you are doing is terrible maths. So coherent. Much logic. Wow. If you know more remain voters that would switch than vice versa why would you be so concerned? You’ll win easily and we’ll have more sovereignty than we’ll know what to do with, almost certainly literally. 17.4 > 16.2 seems clear enough to me I’m not ‘scared’ of a second referendum, just not on board with the idea of giving the losers a second chance because they fucked up first time. It’s the remainers who are running scared, hence the hysterical clamour to take ‘no deal’ off the table in a rigged second referendum.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 11, 2019 15:44:27 GMT
Preserving democracy by not having any more democracy? So coherent. Much logic. Wow. You also seem troubled by maths, so here goes; tories won 317 seats at the last election. This did not give them a 317 seat majority. Similarly, saying 17.4m over and over and over and over does not mean anything because what matters is the majority. You have to net off the disagreement. What you are doing is terrible maths. So coherent. Much logic. Wow. If you know more remain voters that would switch than vice versa why would you be so concerned? You’ll win easily and we’ll have more sovereignty than we’ll know what to do with, almost certainly literally. 17.4 > 16.2 seems clear enough to me I’m not ‘scared’ of a second referendum, just not on board with the idea of giving the losers a second chance because they fucked up first time. It’s the remainers who are running scared, hence the hysterical clamour to take ‘no deal’ off the table in a rigged second referendum. It's literally the schoolyard scenario where you win a bet with another kid and he bets you double or quits and then calls you chicken for refusing.
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 15:55:54 GMT
Generally you have two equal comparable proposals and people choose between them. This one wasn’t like that though. It was abstract (whatever brexit you would like) v concrete (the status quo). Ref: whatukthinks.org/eu/questions/how-would-you-vote-if-there-was-a-referendum-on-whether-to-leave-the-eu-without-a-deal-or-leave-with-boris-johnsons-deal/ There’s any number of polls that basically show the same thing, some people want to leave whatever, some people want to leave with a deal and some people want to stay. It probably seemed great tactics at the time to not define brexit and capture all these votes, but that is now the biggest obstacle to leaving. Ultimately, if we leave on the basis of a logically flawed referendum, the result will never be accepted by people that want to stay, and they will continue to say we should have another vote. If there’s another vote and leave wins again on a concrete proposal, people who want to stay will accept it. If remain wins, people don’t want to leave and we shouldn’t be leaving. The only way to resolve this is by going back to the people to check on something concrete. It kills any argument either way stone dead. The only people who seem to think it was flawed are the remain campaign, funny that. We all know what happened, both sides of the house never in their worst nightmares ever expected to lose the vote to the British public, in fairness neither did i. They've then spent the last three years trying any and every way possible to convince anyone that will listen that the vote was wrong, the campaign was illegal, the voters were stupid etc in the hope that eventually the British publics resolve would fold and the EU gravy train can get back on the tracks. I still believe it will never be allowed to happen and for the sake of democracy that would be wrong. It may turn out to be the worst decision the British public ever made, it might turn out to be the case with the politicians we currently have at our disposal, but we have to be allowed to see if it is or not. I think their might be some wilful ignorance on the part of leavers that there was no problem with the way the question was put together because it benefits their cause. If city won by an obviously dodgy penalty we wouldn’t be telling the FA. I’d just like to point out that while I would prefer to remain, I actually think leave would win on concrete terms too. While I think the anger and desire for change is misplaced, I can absolutely understand where it’s come from and from what I see things have got worse for most people in the last three and a half years since the vote. Nevertheless, the result is always going to be viewed as illegitimate by people who want to remain, and given demographic changes the strength of that sentiment will only grow. Leaving, even on a Swiss deal, will never resolve this without checking first.
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 15:59:12 GMT
Preserving democracy by not having any more democracy? So coherent. Much logic. Wow. You also seem troubled by maths, so here goes; tories won 317 seats at the last election. This did not give them a 317 seat majority. Similarly, saying 17.4m over and over and over and over does not mean anything because what matters is the majority. You have to net off the disagreement. What you are doing is terrible maths. So coherent. Much logic. Wow. If you know more remain voters that would switch than vice versa why would you be so concerned? You’ll win easily and we’ll have more sovereignty than we’ll know what to do with, almost certainly literally. 17.4 > 16.2 seems clear enough to me I’m not ‘scared’ of a second referendum, just not on board with the idea of giving the losers a second chance because they fucked up first time. It’s the remainers who are running scared, hence the hysterical clamour to take ‘no deal’ off the table in a rigged second referendum. Actually, yes there is a bit of fear on the remain side about a second decade of a self-inflicted shit economy, and that’s the optimistic end of the fear. If you left school or university in 2008, you could easily be in your mid-50s before we have recovered from repeatedly shooting ourselves in the foot economically. Of course there’s fear at that.
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 16:03:13 GMT
17.4 > 16.2 seems clear enough to me I’m not ‘scared’ of a second referendum, just not on board with the idea of giving the losers a second chance because they fucked up first time. It’s the remainers who are running scared, hence the hysterical clamour to take ‘no deal’ off the table in a rigged second referendum. It's literally the schoolyard scenario where you win a bet with another kid and he bets you double or quits and then calls you chicken for refusing. If we voted again in 2016 on what was decided in the 70s, was that double or quits? And if it was cos things had changed so 2016 was ok, how long has to have passed before things can have changed sufficiently to warrant another vote? A parliamentary term is five years, is that enough time? Cos we assume, as a society, that other things might have changed by then.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 11, 2019 16:17:06 GMT
It's literally the schoolyard scenario where you win a bet with another kid and he bets you double or quits and then calls you chicken for refusing. If we voted again in 2016 on what was decided in the 70s, was that double or quits? And if it was cos things had changed so 2016 was ok, how long has to have passed before things can have changed sufficiently to warrant another vote? A parliamentary term is five years, is that enough time? Cos we assume, as a society, that other things might have changed by then. Hold on, just because the vote was in 2016 doesn't mean we should ignore because the demographic might have changed now. Its the deliberate fault of the house of parliament that the wishes of the majority have not been acted upon with the clear intention that somehow 3 years of sabotaging the effort to leave will change peoples intentions. Lets make it clear, i would have had no problems had the vote gone the other way. Life would carry on regardless. I voted for the shits and giggles that would ensue with the current incumbents of the house. I certainly didn't expect the bullshit that the last three years have given us buts its been worth it to show the sheer ineptitude of british politics, we now know just how little the house think of the British public.
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 11, 2019 16:21:31 GMT
If we voted again in 2016 on what was decided in the 70s, was that double or quits? And if it was cos things had changed so 2016 was ok, how long has to have passed before things can have changed sufficiently to warrant another vote? A parliamentary term is five years, is that enough time? Cos we assume, as a society, that other things might have changed by then. Hold on, just because the vote was in 2016 doesn't mean we should ignore because the demographic might have changed now. Its the deliberate fault of the house of parliament that the wishes of the majority have not been acted upon with the clear intention that somehow 3 years of sabotaging the effort to leave will change peoples intentions. Lets make it clear, i would have had no problems had the vote gone the other way. Life would carry on regardless. I voted for the shits and giggles that would ensue with the current incumbents of the house. I certainly didn't expect the bullshit that the last three years have given us buts its been worth it to show the sheer ineptitude of british politics, we now know just how little the house think of the British public. Different house. The British People elected them after the referendum. Self loathing?
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 11, 2019 16:24:22 GMT
Hold on, just because the vote was in 2016 doesn't mean we should ignore because the demographic might have changed now. Its the deliberate fault of the house of parliament that the wishes of the majority have not been acted upon with the clear intention that somehow 3 years of sabotaging the effort to leave will change peoples intentions. Lets make it clear, i would have had no problems had the vote gone the other way. Life would carry on regardless. I voted for the shits and giggles that would ensue with the current incumbents of the house. I certainly didn't expect the bullshit that the last three years have given us buts its been worth it to show the sheer ineptitude of british politics, we now know just how little the house think of the British public. Different house. The British People elected them after the referendum. Self loathing? forget who voted for who, they all piss in the same pot. Same with the EU, all part of the same problem.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Nov 11, 2019 16:39:11 GMT
It's literally the schoolyard scenario where you win a bet with another kid and he bets you double or quits and then calls you chicken for refusing. If we voted again in 2016 on what was decided in the 70s, was that double or quits? And if it was cos things had changed so 2016 was ok, how long has to have passed before things can have changed sufficiently to warrant another vote? A parliamentary term is five years, is that enough time? Cos we assume, as a society, that other things might have changed by then. This sets a terrible precedent though and effectively renders any future referendum null and void by virtue of the tardy get out clause. All the sitting MP’s of the day have to do is drag their heels long enough and we can ignore whatever it is the people voted for. It’s filibustering on a national scale and it’s a very dangerous, high stakes game. This is something I think Remainers lose sight of in their monomaniacal clamour to overturn the 2016 result. Next time it could very well be their vote that’s deliberately stymied. It won’t be funny then either.
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Nov 11, 2019 21:29:42 GMT
Brexit has to be done. Anything else is the death of democracy in this country. It'll cause some challenges, but we'll find a way through and the longer term carnage of not delivering to the will of the people, will be worse.
Added to which, the cunts in charge need to be held to account. They need to learn that floating referendums for self serving political gain only to back out when you dont get the result you want, wont be tolerated.
|
|
|
Post by Pyongyang Bantam on Nov 12, 2019 0:10:29 GMT
Hold on, just because the vote was in 2016 doesn't mean we should ignore because the demographic might have changed now. Its the deliberate fault of the house of parliament that the wishes of the majority have not been acted upon with the clear intention that somehow 3 years of sabotaging the effort to leave will change peoples intentions. Lets make it clear, i would have had no problems had the vote gone the other way. Life would carry on regardless. I voted for the shits and giggles that would ensue with the current incumbents of the house. I certainly didn't expect the bullshit that the last three years have given us buts its been worth it to show the sheer ineptitude of british politics, we now know just how little the house think of the British public. Different house. The British People elected them after the referendum. Self loathing? Both major parties pledged to respect the referendum in the 2017 general elections. The only conclusion one can reasonably draw is that most remain MPs were elected under false pretences, to put it mildy.
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Nov 12, 2019 10:43:38 GMT
Jo Swinsons tits.
|
|
claw
Hot Water Tank Bantam
Posts: 713
|
Post by claw on Nov 13, 2019 9:22:53 GMT
Angela Rayner - In a breath.
|
|
|
Post by Hobhead on Nov 13, 2019 9:59:05 GMT
Angela Rayner - In a breath. When only two men alive would and the other one’s Lofty then you know you’re in trouble. Mind you, I can’t really speak. I’ve got this recurring fantasy wherein I jam my flaccid cock and balls in Esther McVey’s mouth then, while she mumbles something about fiscal policy, I find out how much I have to grow before she shuts the fuck up.
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Nov 13, 2019 11:21:41 GMT
Rayner's a proper Pile Bar bird.
|
|
|
Post by Neshead on Nov 13, 2019 12:08:13 GMT
Laura Pidcock. I’m running out of wank material.
|
|