FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > There have to be a majority 60/40
There have to be a majority 60/40
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Who else agrees on that the 60/40 split is the perfect vote result as there have to be a majority, in the banking world they use this to vote forward a suggestion, what is your view  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
The UK inserted such a clause before in a referendum.
The 1979 referendum on Scottish devolution.
A simple majority of votes cast was not enough.
40 % of the total electorate had to say Yes.
The proposal gained a majority of votes cast.
But of the total electorate it was only 33 per cent, so the proposal fell.
The 1997 referendum was a simple majority for two questions.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ave 42Man
over a year ago
pontefract |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult. "
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result "
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A simple majority is fine if you're looking to gauge public interest in a subject. Unfortunately the 'non binding' part was usurped by Cameron's promise to abide by the result. "
A promise gives comfort to a fool.
Old nick nick clegg taught everyone who voted for him that lesson when he made a promise he never delivered on.
He's not alone in making promises that never happen. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are
changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner "
bookies don't pay out if your horse finishes last tho....even if it had it's run upset by the losing/cheating horse and jockey who was first past the post |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ave 42Man
over a year ago
pontefract |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner "
But in horse racing the majority of bookies pay out on first past the post
So the result might change in horse racing but this was a referendum not an horse race
And just because you backed a loser in remain just suck it up and stop whining and admit you backed a loser |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner "
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs."
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void "
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result "
If you follow that logic through then the electorate voted to stay in back in 1975. Surely yes means yes? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ave 42Man
over a year ago
pontefract |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void "
We all know It was a one off race and all those that backed the odds on favourite ended up getting stuffed by the outsider
17.4 million people beat the bookies that day
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied..."
I disagree that Remain lied, pretty much everything said is coming home to roost, but I will accept both lied, if we agree on that basis the result is null and void! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I believe that if a referendum is binding, not advisory, the winning side have to win by at least 5%!
I agree with you "
It's common sense to say that. When opinion polls are taken on any one day a 2% margin of error in peoples voting intention can easily occur. 5% would overcome that and make sure that everyone would accept the result like as occurred in Scotland in 2014. Instead we have the current farce and humiliation going on and on and ad infinitum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
I disagree that Remain lied, pretty much everything said is coming home to roost, but I will accept both lied, if we agree on that basis the result is null and void! "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe that if a referendum is binding, not advisory, the winning side have to win by at least 5%!
I agree with you
It's common sense to say that. When opinion polls are taken on any one day a 2% margin of error in peoples voting intention can easily occur. 5% would overcome that and make sure that everyone would accept the result like as occurred in Scotland in 2014. Instead we have the current farce and humiliation going on and on and ad infinitum."
No, I disagree. That gives more weight to one person's vote over another's.
I aisti don't sé what a margin of error in opinion polls has to do with an actual vote. There is no margin of error in a vote as you've either voted one way or the other. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I believe that if a referendum is binding, not advisory, the winning side have to win by at least 5%!
I agree with you
It's common sense to say that. When opinion polls are taken on any one day a 2% margin of error in peoples voting intention can easily occur. 5% would overcome that and make sure that everyone would accept the result like as occurred in Scotland in 2014. Instead we have the current farce and humiliation going on and on and ad infinitum.
No, I disagree. That gives more weight to one person's vote over another's.
I aisti don't sé what a margin of error in opinion polls has to do with an actual vote. There is no margin of error in a vote as you've either voted one way or the other. "
This is undoubtedly up for debate but studies have shown voting can be influenced by location of a polling station, the order of the options or how the question is worded. Weather can effect turn out. While all small it does suggest a margin of error could be argued to ensure such behavioural biases are excluded.
However any margin of win does mean one answer has a default head start. Typically the known (status quo). So never ideal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I believe that if a referendum is binding, not advisory, the winning side have to win by at least 5%!
I agree with you
It's common sense to say that. When opinion polls are taken on any one day a 2% margin of error in peoples voting intention can easily occur. 5% would overcome that and make sure that everyone would accept the result like as occurred in Scotland in 2014. Instead we have the current farce and humiliation going on and on and ad infinitum.
No, I disagree. That gives more weight to one person's vote over another's.
I aisti don't sé what a margin of error in opinion polls has to do with an actual vote. There is no margin of error in a vote as you've either voted one way or the other. "
If only we lived in your black and white world. What a depressing point of view for the future of the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I believe that if a referendum is binding, not advisory, the winning side have to win by at least 5%!
I agree with you
It's common sense to say that. When opinion polls are taken on any one day a 2% margin of error in peoples voting intention can easily occur. 5% would overcome that and make sure that everyone would accept the result like as occurred in Scotland in 2014. Instead we have the current farce and humiliation going on and on and ad infinitum.
No, I disagree. That gives more weight to one person's vote over another's.
I aisti don't sé what a margin of error in opinion polls has to do with an actual vote. There is no margin of error in a vote as you've either voted one way or the other.
If only we lived in your black and white world. What a depressing point of view for the future of the UK."
What's so depressing about a simple majority?
Isn't that the way you've always done it?
Have i missed something? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"A simple majority is fine if you're looking to gauge public interest in a subject. Unfortunately the 'non binding' part was usurped by Cameron's promise to abide by the result. "
You cannot hold a referendum if you do not abide by the result,it is not a survey there is a difference
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"A simple majority is fine if you're looking to gauge public interest in a subject. Unfortunately the 'non binding' part was usurped by Cameron's promise to abide by the result. "
Yep and that's why we should abide by the result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied..."
Indeed but the crux is that Brexiteers are still lying and trying to move the goalposts to push for a no deal exit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
I disagree that Remain lied, pretty much everything said is coming home to roost, but I will accept both lied, if we agree on that basis the result is null and void!
"
I thought we’d be able to agree about this one, seems quite simple - Leave accept they were lied to and conned, Remain say we all make mistakes and then we give it another go? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue? "
Never, they have said they want to buy a house regardless of the surveys carried out afterwards, they only want the choice of standard mortgage or interest only mortgage.
All surveys lie anyway so they want to buy this house regardless of incurred costs. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue? "
40 years, that is how long we had to wait. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue?
40 years, that is how long we had to wait."
But we have to have another one now as you agreed we’d all been conned and lied to - not really very democratic forcing us to accept something that wasn’t sold as promised? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who else agrees on that the 60/40 split is the perfect vote result as there have to be a majority, in the banking world they use this to vote forward a suggestion, what is your view "
I would also add that at least 40% of the total eligible to vote should make up that 60%. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Who else agrees on that the 60/40 split is the perfect vote result as there have to be a majority, in the banking world they use this to vote forward a suggestion, what is your view
I would also add that at least 40% of the total eligible to vote should make up that 60%."
That seems a little low, there should be a turnout of 80%+ - I would like it to be mandatory to vote in referendums! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Who else agrees on that the 60/40 split is the perfect vote result as there have to be a majority, in the banking world they use this to vote forward a suggestion, what is your view
I would also add that at least 40% of the total eligible to vote should make up that 60%.
That seems a little low, there should be a turnout of 80%+ - I would like it to be mandatory to vote in referendums!"
Agreed, if the Australians can do it why can’t we  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That seems a little low, there should be a turnout of 80%+ - I would like it to be mandatory to vote in referendums!"
I would only require the same minimum total vote for a change as is needed to call industrial action, and that is 40% of the total eligible to vote. Of course brexit would fail both this and the 60% for change hurdle. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I do agree with mandatory voting. but would also mandate that the option to vote for "None of them" be on every ballot and if 'none of them' poles highest then the seat remains empty, and if more seats remained empty than of the largest party or group then no government would be formed forcing a government of national unity to be hobbled together. Further I would mandate that all empty seats votes be automatically cast against the government in all cases. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I do agree with mandatory voting. but would also mandate that the option to vote for "None of them" be on every ballot and if 'none of them' poles highest then the seat remains empty, and if more seats remained empty than of the largest party or group then no government would be formed forcing a government of national unity to be hobbled together. Further I would mandate that all empty seats votes be automatically cast against the government in all cases. "
Wouldn’t disagree! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied..."
We're saying Leave lied and seriously broke election law which invalidates any mandate the leave vote may have given. We're not saying anything about Remain. However, if you're saying that Remain lied also that doesn't validate Leaves lies and illegal campaigning. In fact quite the opposite, if Remain also lied and/or seriously broke election law, that would just further invalidate the whole referendum, result and any mandate claimed from it.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"A simple majority is fine if you're looking to gauge public interest in a subject. Unfortunately the 'non binding' part was usurped by Cameron's promise to abide by the result. You cannot hold a referendum if you do not abide by the result,it is not a survey there is a difference"
Why not? Especially when those who have to actually implement the result specifically wrote into the law enabling it that it was only advisory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
We're saying Leave lied and seriously broke election law which invalidates any mandate the leave vote may have given. We're not saying anything about Remain. However, if you're saying that Remain lied also that doesn't validate Leaves lies and illegal campaigning. In fact quite the opposite, if Remain also lied and/or seriously broke election law, that would just further invalidate the whole referendum, result and any mandate claimed from it.
"
I don’t disagree, but I was trying to find a middle ground where there was acceptance of lies. I really don’t feel the need to argue that Leave lied ‘more’ to a confirmed Leaver, when he has already accepted we were all conned (maybe not all of us). I am delighted we have acceptance that the Referendum was not valid as a result. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ave 42Man
over a year ago
pontefract |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
We're saying Leave lied and seriously broke election law which invalidates any mandate the leave vote may have given. We're not saying anything about Remain. However, if you're saying that Remain lied also that doesn't validate Leaves lies and illegal campaigning. In fact quite the opposite, if Remain also lied and/or seriously broke election law, that would just further invalidate the whole referendum, result and any mandate claimed from it.
"
Does it really matter if both sides lied
Everyone knew what they were voting for and remain still lost
It’s about time remainers accepted the result and stopped whining
And wouldn’t it be funny all the shouting about another referendum if they offered one and remain wasn’t on there
I’d piss myself with laughter |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
We're saying Leave lied and seriously broke election law which invalidates any mandate the leave vote may have given. We're not saying anything about Remain. However, if you're saying that Remain lied also that doesn't validate Leaves lies and illegal campaigning. In fact quite the opposite, if Remain also lied and/or seriously broke election law, that would just further invalidate the whole referendum, result and any mandate claimed from it.
Does it really matter if both sides lied
Everyone knew what they were voting for and remain still lost
It’s about time remainers accepted the result and stopped whining
And wouldn’t it be funny all the shouting about another referendum if they offered one and remain wasn’t on there
I’d piss myself with laughter"
Or Remain knew what they were voting for & Leave had 17.4m different outcomes - which astonishingly are all different from May’s attempt. Get real it was a protest vote, but nobody has shown any Leadership to fulfil even one of the 17.4m options. And you wonder why people cant agree any Brexit!?  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I would have thought that if a simple majority was all that was needed to overturn membership then a simple majority should be all that's required to overturn that decision as well.
A quorum might have been more sensible in the first place, although practically difficult.
But a simple majority won so why should the losers get another vote just because they didn’t like the result
You know when you bet on a horse and it wins a race, but after the race they discover the horse or jockey were illegal (weight, doping, use of whip, lies), the results are changed as the ‘winning’ horse is disqualified for foul play - the 2nd placed horse then becomes the winner
As far as over use of the whip is concerned a horse racing result is changed. But that happens after weighing in, and therefore does nothing to alter the paying out of bets. You won’t get paid out on the amended result. Nobody gets disqualified for “lying” unless of course you put the wrong horse in the race, which in my memory only happened once, and even then it all came out to far down the line to affect the SPs.
...maybe I was pointing out Leave lied. Happy to have a re-run next year if it makes everyone happy - we can call this one null & void
Are you trying to say that remain didn’t lie? They all fucking lied...
We're saying Leave lied and seriously broke election law which invalidates any mandate the leave vote may have given. We're not saying anything about Remain. However, if you're saying that Remain lied also that doesn't validate Leaves lies and illegal campaigning. In fact quite the opposite, if Remain also lied and/or seriously broke election law, that would just further invalidate the whole referendum, result and any mandate claimed from it.
Does it really matter if both sides lied
Everyone knew what they were voting for and remain still lost
It’s about time remainers accepted the result and stopped whining
And wouldn’t it be funny all the shouting about another referendum if they offered one and remain wasn’t on there
I’d piss myself with laughter"
Of course it matters if either side based their campaign on lies and even more if both sides did.
And, if everyone new what they were voting for then maybe you can tell us what it was because, during the referendum campaign, Leave voters were told that they were voting to leave the EU with a deal that would be better than we have now because we would hold all the cards; but now they're being told that they voted to Leave with "no deal". So which is it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue? "
It will be to late once out we could not just go back in if we wanted to,it is not a revolving door they probably would not have us back we cause to much trouble
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue? It will be to late once out we could not just go back in if we wanted to,it is not a revolving door they probably would not have us back we cause to much trouble"
Only some, many of us enjoy being part of the EU and contribute to a safer and more cosmopolitan Europe - how are we better off being outside of the EU? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
O think that there should certainly be clarity on what any results would mean, before a referendum. But for a referendum that may have significant life-changing consequences, the threshold should be incredibly high, perhaps 80% and where a very high proportion of the population votes.
There should also be officially permitted statements of factual claims that can be used, to prevent lies from being presented. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Just out off curiosity, for the people who object to another referendum, how much time has to elapse before you'd allow another vote on this issue? "
Referenda tend to be labelled as once-in-a-generation events.
How long is a generation?
It is only defined in law in one place - the Belfast Agreement.
In the event of a referendum on Irish re-unification, seven years must elapse before another one can be held.
So a generation is 7 years.
2014 + 7 = 2021 for the next referendum on Scottish independence. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
