FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > These so called indestructible £5 notes
These so called indestructible £5 notes
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"What a load of bull. Indestructible? Brexit's already fucked them up. Can't even get an afghani car wash in exchange for one now. "  . Lol - but what an amusing, although somewhat scary, thread! Loved your last post in there! | |||
 some people are so touchy. Why are brexiters so angry? They are getting what they wanted. Is reality dawning?
I suppose it is a bit annoying when you realise you have no more excuses, no-one else to blame. | |||
"What a load of bull. Indestructible? Brexit's already fucked them up. Can't even get an afghani car wash in exchange for one now. " Who pissed on your chips? | |||
| |||
"How sad. Brexit gets more popular with every week that passes yet still some people refuse to see it. " Hahahahaha Oh, you're serious? | |||
"How sad. Brexit gets more popular with every week that passes yet still some people refuse to see it. " Yes, we're all coming together. [Facepalm] | |||
| |||
"How sad. Brexit gets more popular with every week that passes yet still some people refuse to see it. Hahahahaha Oh, you're serious?" Yes | |||
" some people are so touchy. Why are brexiters so angry? They are getting what they wanted. Is reality dawning?
I suppose it is a bit annoying when you realise you have no more excuses, no-one else to blame. "Who is blamimg brexit? It's all getting a bit old and recyd=cled now | |||
"How sad. Brexit gets more popular with every week that passes yet still some people refuse to see it. Hahahahaha Oh, you're serious? Yes" And the general election will prove it | |||
| |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision" So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people! | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people! "You can't be serious surely? | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?"? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything? | |||
| |||
"They were pretty mislead let's be honest. You're not denying that?" Who? Remainers? | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?"OK. A lot of people voted in the referendum. Problem is, the decision was very close. Brexit is not popular with almost half of the country. | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?
OK. A lot of people voted in the referendum. Problem is, the decision was very close. Brexit is not popular with almost half of the country."Only 27% of the country voted Leave. | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?"When have more people ever voted *not* to do something? -Matt | |||
| |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people! "Try reading it again. -Matt | |||
"U say mislead how do u work that one out they spent 9 million of tax payers money on a leaflet threw every door in country r you saying half the country can't read we knew exactly wot we voted for grow sum and get on with it now lol" No. You don't know what you voted for. -Matt | |||
| |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?
When have more people ever voted *not* to do something?
-Matt"What do you get for coming 2nd? Sorry, last? | |||
"U say mislead how do u work that one out they spent 9 million of tax payers money on a leaflet threw every door in country r you saying half the country can't read we knew exactly wot we voted for grow sum and get on with it now lol No. You don't know what you voted for. -Matt" And you do?  | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people! "Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular? | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular?"If 17 million people vote for something its not popular? | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?
OK. A lot of people voted in the referendum. Problem is, the decision was very close. Brexit is not popular with almost half of the country.
Only 27% of the country voted Leave. "How do you work that out? | |||
| |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. " Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? | |||
"I know what they voted for. Whatever the fuck they get. There is no other answer. As to what that is, we won't know for a couple of years and beyond. Up to now all we can say is 1. Rising prices 2. A rise in hate crime 3. International ridicule" Prices always rise Hate crime is on the up without any help from brexit number 3 well who gives a crap what the rest of the world think ? | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. " difference between population and elegible voters | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad?" It wasn't an argument, just a factual statement. We keep getting told 'the will of the people'. For a big constitutional change a much higher threshold than just over 50% of the vote. It is usually 2/3 to 3/4. That way it has a chance of revealing that more than half of the whole population are serious about wanting change. Whether they were able to vote or not, people in this country and uk nationals abroad are stakeholders and their futures are our responsibility. | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? It wasn't an argument, just a factual statement. We keep getting told 'the will of the people'. For a big constitutional change a much higher threshold than just over 50% of the vote. It is usually 2/3 to 3/4. That way it has a chance of revealing that more than half of the whole population are serious about wanting change. Whether they were able to vote or not, people in this country and uk nationals abroad are stakeholders and their futures are our responsibility. " Which is why we voted to get out of the EU | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular?
If 17 million people vote for something its not popular?"Even if you remove the abstainers as "couldn't give a crap what happens either way", a 50:50 split means that neither side is the popular choice. | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular?
If 17 million people vote for something its not popular?
Even if you remove the abstainers as "couldn't give a crap what happens either way", a 50:50 split means that neither side is the popular choice. "But both sides are popular, just one more than the other. A bit like Oasis v Blur | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular?
If 17 million people vote for something its not popular?
Even if you remove the abstainers as "couldn't give a crap what happens either way", a 50:50 split means that neither side is the popular choice.
But both sides are popular, just one more than the other. A bit like Oasis v Blur "Apart from it's nothing like Blur vs Oasis as they are not mutually exclusive the way Leave vs remain is. Your love of Blur doesn't affect my love of Oasis. -Matt | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? It wasn't an argument, just a factual statement. We keep getting told 'the will of the people'. For a big constitutional change a much higher threshold than just over 50% of the vote. It is usually 2/3 to 3/4. That way it has a chance of revealing that more than half of the whole population are serious about wanting change. Whether they were able to vote or not, people in this country and uk nationals abroad are stakeholders and their futures are our responsibility. " So you're saying the Scottish remain vote didn't count either? 1.7M out of a population of 5.3M. Less than a third of the Scottish population. | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
Of those who vited, you are well aware that it was circa 48-52% How on earth can that ever be deemed popular?
If 17 million people vote for something its not popular?
Even if you remove the abstainers as "couldn't give a crap what happens either way", a 50:50 split means that neither side is the popular choice. "I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you. | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? It wasn't an argument, just a factual statement. We keep getting told 'the will of the people'. For a big constitutional change a much higher threshold than just over 50% of the vote. It is usually 2/3 to 3/4. That way it has a chance of revealing that more than half of the whole population are serious about wanting change. Whether they were able to vote or not, people in this country and uk nationals abroad are stakeholders and their futures are our responsibility. So you're saying the Scottish remain vote didn't count either? 1.7M out of a population of 5.3M. Less than a third of the Scottish population." 62% of the voters. If it was a vote for Scotland going INTO the EU I'd say they just fell short of the requirement, although maybe 60% is a reasonable threshold as there is a clear margin. However the Scots were voting to remain in the EU. Even at a 60% threshold the Scottish vote to Leave, at 38% was a massive 22% short of a reasonable threshold for such a constitutional change and effect on peoples rights. You misunderstand my point anyway. Theresa May and the Brexiters keep saying it is the will of the people and a clear mandate. 52% of a gerrymandered poll on one particular day is not a clear mandate, so the media should desist from repeating such a ridiculous narrative. | |||
" I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you." You see it wrong (though you appear to be in the majority), the abstainers were not expressing a desire for change, therefore the status quo should remain. | |||
" I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you. You see it wrong (though you appear to be in the majority), the abstainers were not expressing a desire for change, therefore the status quo should remain. " Incorrect - there was an option on the form for no change, it read "remain in the EU". Abstaining means that you couldn't give a fuck either way. | |||
" I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you. You see it wrong (though you appear to be in the majority), the abstainers were not expressing a desire for change, therefore the status quo should remain. Incorrect - there was an option on the form for no change, it read "remain in the EU". Abstaining means that you couldn't give a fuck either way. " | |||
" I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you. You see it wrong (though you appear to be in the majority), the abstainers were not expressing a desire for change, therefore the status quo should remain. Incorrect - there was an option on the form for no change, it read "remain in the EU". Abstaining means that you couldn't give a fuck either way. " But fucking thick remainers refuse to accept this. | |||
" I see it as abstainers don't have an opinion either way, so therefore they will accept the majority decision. A bit like not voting in a general election. You have no choice but to accept what's given to you. You see it wrong (though you appear to be in the majority), the abstainers were not expressing a desire for change, therefore the status quo should remain. Incorrect - there was an option on the form for no change, it read "remain in the EU". Abstaining means that you couldn't give a fuck either way. But fucking thick remainers refuse to accept this." For balance; I don't think "being thick" is particular to remainers, there are plenty of morons on the brexit side too. I voted remain, for example. I've outlined my reasons for this on one of the several billion threads on the subject. I voted remain, even though I'm ideologically opposed to the EU, I'm with Tony (Benn, not Blair) in my opinion of how the EU is run, but the idea of Tory government, unfettered by the small concessions to the people that the EU gives terrified me. | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? It wasn't an argument, just a factual statement. We keep getting told 'the will of the people'. For a big constitutional change a much higher threshold than just over 50% of the vote. It is usually 2/3 to 3/4. That way it has a chance of revealing that more than half of the whole population are serious about wanting change. Whether they were able to vote or not, people in this country and uk nationals abroad are stakeholders and their futures are our responsibility. So you're saying the Scottish remain vote didn't count either? 1.7M out of a population of 5.3M. Less than a third of the Scottish population. 62% of the voters. If it was a vote for Scotland going INTO the EU I'd say they just fell short of the requirement, although maybe 60% is a reasonable threshold as there is a clear margin. However the Scots were voting to remain in the EU. Even at a 60% threshold the Scottish vote to Leave, at 38% was a massive 22% short of a reasonable threshold for such a constitutional change and effect on peoples rights. You misunderstand my point anyway. Theresa May and the Brexiters keep saying it is the will of the people and a clear mandate. 52% of a gerrymandered poll on one particular day is not a clear mandate, so the media should desist from repeating such a ridiculous narrative." It was 1.7M out of 4 Million voters.... Not 62%. And how was the referendum gerrymandered? How come you think 1/3 rd of the population (about 21.5M) voting in is decisive, but if less than half of the population (or 32M of the eligible voters) vote out it's divisive and shouldn't stand? | |||
| |||
"With respect, you don't seem to understand how referenda, if handled competently, are supposed to work. Unfortunately we had the useless pig fucking twat messing up every single step. There is usually a threshold because the non voters are not deemed to be happy with whoever gets the most votes as in a general election. To evoke change requires, usually, a much larger percentage than just 50.1%. I don't know why you are arguing. It says a lot. You should just be saying 'I know, we got pretty lucky on that one'. " It also says a lot when you can't accept the outcome of a vote, accusing it of being rigged, offering no evidence, and think that there should be two measures for a successful vote, dependent upon which way the vote goes. Now that's rigging something! And with regard to the percentage of the population required to have voted... You point out that only 27% of the UK population voted to leave, and say that's not acceptable, but when I point out that not much more than that voted to remain in Scotland, .....? Well, all of a sudden that's ok. Looking further afield, but still within the EU, French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7% The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5% Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994, 13 November 1994, 52.3% in favour, turnout 83.3% What was the threshold in the above referenda, all of which gave 'Pro EU' results, none of which would have given 50% of the population vote, and all meant fundamental change. There are plenty of other examples. Really struggling to find an example of a referendum that resulted in 50% of the population voting for the eventual outcome. Maybe you could show us a few? Scotland has a population of 5.3 Million. When they get their next independence vote, do you think that 2.7 Million should vote for independence for it to be successful? | |||
| |||
"With respect, you don't seem to understand how referenda, if handled competently, are supposed to work. Unfortunately we had the useless pig fucking twat messing up every single step. There is usually a threshold because the non voters are not deemed to be happy with whoever gets the most votes as in a general election. To evoke change requires, usually, a much larger percentage than just 50.1%. I don't know why you are arguing. It says a lot. You should just be saying 'I know, we got pretty lucky on that one'. It also says a lot when you can't accept the outcome of a vote, accusing it of being rigged, offering no evidence, and think that there should be two measures for a successful vote, dependent upon which way the vote goes. Now that's rigging something! And with regard to the percentage of the population required to have voted... You point out that only 27% of the UK population voted to leave, and say that's not acceptable, but when I point out that not much more than that voted to remain in Scotland, .....? Well, all of a sudden that's ok. Looking further afield, but still within the EU, French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7% The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5% Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994, 13 November 1994, 52.3% in favour, turnout 83.3% What was the threshold in the above referenda, all of which gave 'Pro EU' results, none of which would have given 50% of the population vote, and all meant fundamental change. There are plenty of other examples. Really struggling to find an example of a referendum that resulted in 50% of the population voting for the eventual outcome. Maybe you could show us a few? Scotland has a population of 5.3 Million. When they get their next independence vote, do you think that 2.7 Million should vote for independence for it to be successful? " If you listen carefully you can hear the tumble. Just as we thought.... No answer. | |||
| |||
"With respect, you don't seem to understand how referenda, if handled competently, are supposed to work. Unfortunately we had the useless pig fucking twat messing up every single step. There is usually a threshold because the non voters are not deemed to be happy with whoever gets the most votes as in a general election. To evoke change requires, usually, a much larger percentage than just 50.1%. I don't know why you are arguing. It says a lot. You should just be saying 'I know, we got pretty lucky on that one'. It also says a lot when you can't accept the outcome of a vote, accusing it of being rigged, offering no evidence, and think that there should be two measures for a successful vote, dependent upon which way the vote goes. Now that's rigging something! And with regard to the percentage of the population required to have voted... You point out that only 27% of the UK population voted to leave, and say that's not acceptable, but when I point out that not much more than that voted to remain in Scotland, .....? Well, all of a sudden that's ok. Looking further afield, but still within the EU, French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7% The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5% Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994, 13 November 1994, 52.3% in favour, turnout 83.3% What was the threshold in the above referenda, all of which gave 'Pro EU' results, none of which would have given 50% of the population vote, and all meant fundamental change. There are plenty of other examples. Really struggling to find an example of a referendum that resulted in 50% of the population voting for the eventual outcome. Maybe you could show us a few? Scotland has a population of 5.3 Million. When they get their next independence vote, do you think that 2.7 Million should vote for independence for it to be successful? If you listen carefully you can hear the tumble. Just as we thought.... No answer." That tumble's still blowing! | |||
| |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?"Well the vote to join the EU had a larger % of the population vote for it than Brexit. And it had 2/3 of the vote in its favour. | |||
"Around your head. Give me a chance. I've answered you regarding a gerrymandered referendum and vote rigging. You said no evidence. If there was no evidence there would not be investigations being carried out, there would not have been a conclusion of guilty by the electoral commission and beyond that a referral to the cps for criminal prosecution, so serious was this electoral fraud. " No, you actually said that the general election was gerrymandered. ...and then said because of this therefore the EU referendum was rigged. You have shown no evidence of vote rigging in the EU referendum at all. And how was the G.E. gerrymandered? Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? But nevertheless, you've had 4 days now to answer my question on referenda. And have not yet been able to. | |||
"Around your head. Give me a chance. I've answered you regarding a gerrymandered referendum and vote rigging. You said no evidence. If there was no evidence there would not be investigations being carried out, there would not have been a conclusion of guilty by the electoral commission and beyond that a referral to the cps for criminal prosecution, so serious was this electoral fraud. No, you actually said that the general election was gerrymandered. ...and then said because of this therefore the EU referendum was rigged. You have shown no evidence of vote rigging in the EU referendum at all. And how was the G.E. gerrymandered? Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? But nevertheless, you've had 4 days now to answer my question on referenda. And have not yet been able to." And they did a fuck of a job on vote rigging the referendum to get the opposite result from what they wanted! | |||
"Why will it? Because no party is strong enough to challenge at the minute. It's the only reason Mays called the election , because she knows she'll still be in power once it's all done and dusted. Brexit has nothing to do with the outcome of the election. It's the disarray of the Labour party, and the ineptitude of the Lib dems that will be the reason for her winning the election. Not brexit being a popular decision So Brexits not a popular decision? It is the most popular decision that has ever been taken by the British people!
You can't be serious surely?
? Err yes. When have more people ever voted for anything?
Well the vote to join the EU had a larger % of the population vote for it than Brexit. And it had 2/3 of the vote in its favour."Still nowhere near 50% of the population though- which is what some on here say it should be to be valid for major fundamental change to take place. | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? " No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts." So, changing the proportion of people likely to vote one way or the other - did she not effectively 'change the borders' by changing the constituents? | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts." So how was the eu referendum gerrymandered then? | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts." In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. So, changing the proportion of people likely to vote one way or the other - did she not effectively 'change the borders' by changing the constituents?" No. She couldn't change the ward's physical boundaries. If she could have done that, then she definitely would have done. What she did is move Labour voters. In doing so,she changed the outcome of the vote, not the boundary lines. It was a massive scandal which ended up in the courts. Google 'Dame Shirley Porter' and 'gerrymander'. They are loads of sources reporting this happening. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homes_for_votes_scandal | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' " The press consistently reported her action as 'gerrymand ering'. All the press, left and right leaning. I didn't know the meaning of the word until then. That is why the incident is so memorable to me. | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' The press consistently reported her action as 'gerrymand ering'. All the press, left and right leaning. I didn't know the meaning of the word until then. That is why the incident is so memorable to me." So the press is right and the law lords and court of appeal wrong in defining what gerrymandering is then? WOW! | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' The press consistently reported her action as 'gerrymand ering'. All the press, left and right leaning. I didn't know the meaning of the word until then. That is why the incident is so memorable to me. So the press is right and the law lords and court of appeal wrong in defining what gerrymandering is then? WOW!" If you read the Law Lords summation fully, what they say is what she did was to effectively change the boundaries of the wards in Westminster by changing the social make-up of the people in those wards. She also targeted certain wards and not others in order to manipulate the voting outcomes of those wards. She also restricted, and improved, services in certain areas to do the same thing. It's no secret that one of the reasons that Thatcher's government brought in the right to buy was the added benefit that people who own their own home are more likely to vote tory - in the same way that Blair's government allowed and encouraged mass immigration because migrants and their descendants are more likely to vote labour. So, gerrymandering on a grand scale by both the tories and labour then. | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' The press consistently reported her action as 'gerrymandering'. All the press, left and right leaning. I didn't know the meaning of the word until then. That is why the incident is so memorable to me. So the press is right and the law lords and court of appeal wrong in defining what gerrymandering is then? WOW!" No. I did NOT say that. I didn't disagree nor agree with the quote that was mentioned. All I did say was that how I first discovered gerrymandering and how it could affect elections. I was quite young when it happened, (late teens/early twenties) so I remember the press reports rather than the court proceedings. I'm sure you can understand at that age lack of interest in judges reports and legal proceedings. I think you are being rather dramatic.... But I'll let you carry on squawking. I just wanted to clarify my point.  | |||
"Isn't gerrymandered changing constituency boundaries to change an election's result? No. Gerrymandering is not only concerning changing constituency boundaries. It is a deliberate way of changing the result of the voters' expected actions. Remember Dame Shirley Porter? She was the one who moved out Labour voters and moved in Tory supporters to keep control of Westminster council. She was found guilty of gerrymandering in the courts. In his summation when rejecting her appeal, Lord Scott said: 'Gerrymandering, the manipulation of constituency boundaries for party political advantage, is a clear form of political corruption.' The press consistently reported her action as 'gerrymandering'. All the press, left and right leaning. I didn't know the meaning of the word until then. That is why the incident is so memorable to me. So the press is right and the law lords and court of appeal wrong in defining what gerrymandering is then? WOW! No. I did NOT say that. I didn't disagree nor agree with the quote that was mentioned. All I did say was that how I first discovered gerrymandering and how it could affect elections. I was quite young when it happened, (late teens/early twenties) so I remember the press reports rather than the court proceedings. I'm sure you can understand at that age lack of interest in judges reports and legal proceedings. I think you are being rather dramatic.... But I'll let you carry on squawking. I just wanted to clarify my point. "You also told me to google dame Shirley porter and gerrymander. Which I did, ....and found the ruling to which I referred. I remember it quite well. It was a disgraceful affair. And she did effectively gerrymander, not by moving boundaries, but by social engineering within existing boundaries. By moving Tory voters in and Labour voters out. As an aside, do you think 16 and 17 year olds should have had a vote in the referendum? | |||
| |||
"Ok, I'm happy to concede that gerrymandering, whether usually referring to the moving of boundaries or moving voters around is still moving votes around and is therefore the wrong term. The term is more accurately voter suppression in this case, as well as the electoral fraud. " But you're still talking about the general election, not the referendum. And once again, the people who allowed the referendum wanted the country to vote remain.... So they did rather well if they rigged the vote, didn't they! | |||
"Ok, I'm happy to concede that gerrymandering, whether usually referring to the moving of boundaries or moving voters around is still moving votes around and is therefore the wrong term. The term is more accurately voter suppression in this case, as well as the electoral fraud. But you're still talking about the general election, not the referendum. And once again, the people who allowed the referendum wanted the country to vote remain.... So they did rather well if they rigged the vote, didn't they!" Yup, the riggers did a fantastic job. So well, in fact, that the Vote Leave (or Leave.eu I get them mixed up) campaign is currently under investigation as it didn't declare all the help it got from Cambridge Analytica in rigging the vote. -Matt | |||
"Ok, I'm happy to concede that gerrymandering, whether usually referring to the moving of boundaries or moving voters around is still moving votes around and is therefore the wrong term. The term is more accurately voter suppression in this case, as well as the electoral fraud. But you're still talking about the general election, not the referendum. And once again, the people who allowed the referendum wanted the country to vote remain.... So they did rather well if they rigged the vote, didn't they! Yup, the riggers did a fantastic job. So well, in fact, that the Vote Leave (or Leave.eu I get them mixed up) campaign is currently under investigation as it didn't declare all the help it got from Cambridge Analytica in rigging the vote. -Matt" So are you saying they're guilty then? And exactly how was the vote rigged? | |||
 | |||
"So you're saying that vote leave rigged the vote because they managed to convince people to vote leave ? "No, not quite. I'm saying that the Leave.eu campaign are under investigation at the moment for not playing by the rules of the referendum, ie. by not declaring their spending correctly. I would say that that was rigging the referendum. A nice summary just published a couple of days ago about how the leave campaign was mainly funded by five very wealthy anti-european fanatics: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/five-of-uks-richest-men-bankrolled-brexit-gckbxzhsr Even more interesting when you join the dots together to see that Banks hired Cambridge Analytica do work on persuading the electorate via social media. US billionaire Robert Mercer became a major shareholder of Cambridge Analytics when he saw what they could do. He is also close friends with Farage and a major donor to Trump's campaign. Mercer introduced Farage to CA. Hence why some people are saying the Brexit was a trial run of how to influence people ahead of the US election. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/nigel-oakes-cambridge-analytica-what-role-brexit-trump http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit -Matt | |||
| |||
"So you're saying that vote leave rigged the vote because they managed to convince people to vote leave ?
No, not quite. I'm saying that the Leave.eu campaign are under investigation at the moment for not playing by the rules of the referendum, ie. by not declaring their spending correctly. I would say that that was rigging the referendum.
A nice summary just published a couple of days ago about how the leave campaign was mainly funded by five very wealthy anti-european fanatics:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/five-of-uks-richest-men-bankrolled-brexit-gckbxzhsr
Even more interesting when you join the dots together to see that Banks hired Cambridge Analytica do work on persuading the electorate via social media. US billionaire Robert Mercer became a major shareholder of Cambridge Analytics when he saw what they could do. He is also close friends with Farage and a major donor to Trump's campaign. Mercer introduced Farage to CA. Hence why some people are saying the Brexit was a trial run of how to influence people ahead of the US election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/nigel-oakes-cambridge-analytica-what-role-brexit-trump
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit
-Matt"Have the electoral commission stopped investigating the remain campaign yet? Last I heard they were investigating all of the campaigns. I havent heard / can't find anything that they have stopped investigating the remain campaign. | |||
"So you're saying that vote leave rigged the vote because they managed to convince people to vote leave ?
No, not quite. I'm saying that the Leave.eu campaign are under investigation at the moment for not playing by the rules of the referendum, ie. by not declaring their spending correctly. I would say that that was rigging the referendum.
A nice summary just published a couple of days ago about how the leave campaign was mainly funded by five very wealthy anti-european fanatics:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/five-of-uks-richest-men-bankrolled-brexit-gckbxzhsr
Even more interesting when you join the dots together to see that Banks hired Cambridge Analytica do work on persuading the electorate via social media. US billionaire Robert Mercer became a major shareholder of Cambridge Analytics when he saw what they could do. He is also close friends with Farage and a major donor to Trump's campaign. Mercer introduced Farage to CA. Hence why some people are saying the Brexit was a trial run of how to influence people ahead of the US election.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/04/nigel-oakes-cambridge-analytica-what-role-brexit-trump
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/10/arron-banks-man-who-bought-brexit
-Matt
Have the electoral commission stopped investigating the remain campaign yet? Last I heard they were investigating all of the campaigns. I havent heard / can't find anything that they have stopped investigating the remain campaign."I don't see anything on the Electoral Commission website that would suggest they are investigating the remain campaign at all. A few months ago they said that all of the campaigns appeared to have missed some receipts in their filings, but as far as I can see I don't think any actual investigation has been opened into the remain campaign as of yet. The only thing I can see is the press release from them a few days ago saying that they are investigating Leave.eu. -Matt | |||
| |||
| |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad?" Apologies, it's taken me a while to get back to these questions. Do I think new born babies, 2 year olds 10 year olds should have a vote? No. Are you a dickhead. 15 year olds? No. 16 and 17 year olds? Yes. I personally think since they are able to leave school, enter employment, pay taxes and NI, join the armed forces etc the mantra no taxation without representation should apply. However even if they remained unable to vote in a general election I think on a question as big as this, as with Independence and even something like a big constitutional change like moving to a PR system of voting, because these 16-17 year olds are going to be affected more than anyone AND because they are deemed to be responsible enough by society to join the army and live on their own etc. I think everyone should vote, but I wouldn't make it mandatory. If I had no candidate to vote for I would spoil my ballot paper. Do I think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? Not anyone living here, but if they had made their home here then broadly yes, whether they are a UK citizen or not. There would have to be some thresholds. You couldn't have someone here on holiday, or able to pop over just to vote. Prisoners? Yes, they should be able to vote. Brits living abroad? Yes. | |||
| |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? Apologies, it's taken me a while to get back to these questions. Do I think new born babies, 2 year olds 10 year olds should have a vote? No. Are you a dickhead. 15 year olds? No. 16 and 17 year olds? Yes. I personally think since they are able to leave school, enter employment, pay taxes and NI, join the armed forces etc the mantra no taxation without representation should apply. However even if they remained unable to vote in a general election I think on a question as big as this, as with Independence and even something like a big constitutional change like moving to a PR system of voting, because these 16-17 year olds are going to be affected more than anyone AND because they are deemed to be responsible enough by society to join the army and live on their own etc. I think everyone should vote, but I wouldn't make it mandatory. If I had no candidate to vote for I would spoil my ballot paper. Do I think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? Not anyone living here, but if they had made their home here then broadly yes, whether they are a UK citizen or not. There would have to be some thresholds. You couldn't have someone here on holiday, or able to pop over just to vote. Prisoners? Yes, they should be able to vote. Brits living abroad? Yes. " From one of your fellow remainers... . I was quite young when it happened, (late teens/early twenties) so I remember the press reports rather than the court proceedings. I'm sure you can understand at that age lack of interest in judges reports and legal proceedings. And also a lack of political knowledge and understanding. Like most teenagers the world over, at 16/17 they don't really have much clue about politics. Also, 16 and 17 year Olds cannot join the armed forces without parental consent. You also can't drink alcohol or drive a car at 16. In England and Wales you can't get married without parental consent until you are 18. You can't legally leave home without your parents' consent until you are 18. But hey, why let facts get in the way of your narrative? And please don't call or insinuate that I'm a dickhead. It only serves to show you up, not anyone else. I'll accept your apologies in advance. | |||
| |||
"Your deliberately silly question about whether I thought newborn babies should be entitled to vote was beneath you and earned you a reply in kind, that's all. Don't go getting all upset about it. It was like for like so if my comment reflected badly on me .... Yes, I'm aware that the age period from turning 16 until reaching 18 is a kind of probationary adulthood period, without them being given their full unrestricted rights. Never the less they are allowed, even expected to pay taxes in employment, which they are perfectly entitled to engage in. They are treated slightly differently, in that really, because they are still maturing and they are going out into the big wide world we as a society just feel they are entitled to a greater duty of care. We don't want them out of their depth, at the risk of exploitation and such like. Financially they are often in a difficult position. By stipulating that certain things are only permissible with the approval of parents is entrusting this duty of care as well as judgement, on behalf of society, to those who know the young adult best and who usually will care for their progress most. things like alcohol and driving are a little different. Vehicles are lethal weapons and people drinking alcohol can be a danger to others also. I can see it makes sense to hold back access to this. This is a question about voting. Since some things are allowed at 16, some things are allowed with parental permission and some things are not where should voting fall? Voting is not like alcohol which is in part about protecting someone who is vulnerable. It's not like driving a car, voting doesn't injure or kill. So looking at the other restrictions, we accept 16-17 year olds can leave home, get married, join the army etc, just with permission. So should we say they can vote if their parents give permission? No, that would be silly. At the end of the day they are considered able to do these things and have sex and be parents. They should be able to vote. I have no great passion for 16 and 17 year olds being able to vote in a general election as another one will come along son enough, though on balance I think there is no great reason to stop them. However the referendum is different in my view. It is a once in a generation event, or should be. It is potentially a huge impact on the young in society and will affect them longer. It just seems right that as many of them have a say as possible. The scots decided their 16 year olds were worthy of the responsibility and were proved right. Are we deeming our 16-17 year olds less worthy than the Scottish ones? Finally, to your apology. I don't think I owe you one, for the reason I stated at the top. In any case I think I've done better than that. You've asked me a lot of questions on this and another thread. They have been one liners so easy to write yet demanding quite detailed and long answers. I have afforded you the respect of doing so, despite my views being misrepresented or (deliberately?) misunderstood and mocked. I've even acknowledged where I was wrong, which doesn't always happen on here but I've had occasion to do when factually in the wrong or persuaded by a better argument to change opinion. Also, you suggested I was avoiding answering you because I didn't do so quickly, but you weren't asking for quick answers, it was a weekend and busy few days and also I didn't have pc access and it's harder on a mobile phone. Hopefully you will remember that. " Of course, the more flippant answer that I would have given that if 16-18 year olds need a letter of consent to join the forces, get married etc, then thats fine. They can vote as long as they have a permission slip from mum and dad. | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? Apologies, it's taken me a while to get back to these questions. " So far it's taken a week (and counting) for you to comment on these in light of your requirements on referenda Looking further afield, but still within the EU, French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7% The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5% Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994, 13 November 1994, 52.3% in favour, turnout 83.3% What was the threshold in the above referenda, all of which gave 'Pro EU' results, none of which would have given 50% of the population vote, and all meant fundamental change. There are plenty of other examples. Really struggling to find an example of a referendum that resulted in 50% of the population voting for the eventual outcome. Maybe you could show us a few? | |||
"17.5 million voted for brexit out of a population of 64 million ish. Not sure you've properly thought that argument through. So you think everybody in the UK should have a vote then? Even new born babies? 2 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? 16 and 17 year olds? If not, how would you ensure that we get to the point that 100% of the population are truly represented on an equal basis? Do you think voting should be mandatory? If not, how would you ensure that those who did not vote's views were represented? Or do you think they don't have a strong enough view one way or another to actually get out and vote? Do you think that anyone living in this country should be allowed to vote? What about those who are in prison? Non-UK citizens? Brits living abroad? Apologies, it's taken me a while to get back to these questions. So far it's taken a week (and counting) for you to comment on these in light of your requirements on referenda Looking further afield, but still within the EU, French Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1992, 20 September 1992, 51.0% in favour, turnout 69.7% The Danish Maastricht Treaty referendum, 1993, 18 May 1993, 56.7% in favour, turnout 86.5% Swedish European Union membership referendum, 1994, 13 November 1994, 52.3% in favour, turnout 83.3% What was the threshold in the above referenda, all of which gave 'Pro EU' results, none of which would have given 50% of the population vote, and all meant fundamental change. There are plenty of other examples. Really struggling to find an example of a referendum that resulted in 50% of the population voting for the eventual outcome. Maybe you could show us a few?" Nearly two weeks now..... Zzzzzzzzz. | |||
