FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > 17.4 million...
17.4 million...
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"What about 47 million who didn't vote to leave (18 million not registered to vote, 13 million didn't vote and 16 million voted remain) But this should be in politics forum" Most who didn't vote either didn't care either way or would have chosen to leave as the great unwashed have an isolation view and its all about them and maximising their benifits. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?"." Sorry you feel that way, the referendum was non binding because UK parliament is sovereign. The really bad news is the first step hasn't been achieved, theres a long road ahead, lots more laws to be passed, about 40 years worth. And then there is the trade deals..... | |||
| |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?"." You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate." My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. | |||
| |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. " There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it  | |||
"How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money." That's exactly the point of the conservatives, a remain party with some leavers, trying to continue kicking the can down the road as long as they can. With Treason it became too obvious she wasn't trying so she was switched for Boris, who to be fair is playing the pretend Leaver role with much more gusto, and competency.  | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however." Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it "There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses. | |||
 | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses."What is wrong with Eu parliament, court and laws. Ps how many Eu laws have been imposed on us??? I will answer your question.... zero. The reason being is that we are the only country will a full veto on anything we don’t like | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
What is wrong with Eu parliament, court and laws.
Ps how many Eu laws have been imposed on us???
I will answer your question.... zero. The reason being is that we are the only country will a full veto on anything we don’t like "Nope, we impliment everything that's been voted for in the European Parliament by majority but anything that constitutes major policy change like a European Army then a unanimous vote is the only way to do so. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave." No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on  | |||
" Ps how many Eu laws have been imposed on us??? I will answer your question.... zero. The reason being is that we are the only country will a full veto on anything we don’t like " The policy is presented to the council of ministers and its committees. The UK has voted for about 90-odd per cent of policy brought forward. The few occasions where it lost the vote concerned financial regulation. The policy is converted into regulation by the Commission and presented to the Parliament. That's my understanding of how it functions. The Parliament holds the Commission to account for the decisions of the Council of Ministers. | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses."No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries. There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem. You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative. Just another repetition of a phrase. We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome. "ARTICLE 2 The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it." We were too stupid to understand this then we're we? | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?"We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications. | |||
| |||
"4 years Isnt that how often general elections are? Time for another vote then. We don't elect 1 party and that's it for years to come " This is my point though. It plays into Farage's hands if we do that. Apart from his racism, his other main argument is that there's a political elite frustrating the people. If the vote is overturned years later having never been enacted then prepare for Farage, his successors and the far right to become mainstays of British politics for years. | |||
| |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?"." I think only survivors of the first referendum should have been eligible to vote. After all that can see if it was worth it or not. | |||
| |||
"Our parents voted to join back in 1975, BUT they voted for a "common market", not a customs union, laws being made in Brussels, free movement of people etc. Had they been told that's what they were voting for, they would've voted against joining." How do you know that that would be so confused and uncaring? They might have been nice people. Some of them at least. | |||
| |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications."Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to. Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them. | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications.
Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to.
Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them."yeah interesting read even more convinced that we should leave now. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on "So what you're saying is that the 33% who voted to leave in 1975 were all the younger people, and the 67% who voted remain were all the older people (mainly)? | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications.
Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to.
Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them.yeah interesting read even more convinced that we should leave now. "None of it supports your point about it being purely about trade. The information from both sides was better informed and presented than this time around though. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
So what you're saying is that the 33% who voted to leave in 1975 were all the younger people, and the 67% who voted remain were all the older people (mainly)?"No | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
So what you're saying is that the 33% who voted to leave in 1975 were all the younger people, and the 67% who voted remain were all the older people (mainly)?
No"So what are you saying then? | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on "Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please."Google what you just wrote. You will see an LSE blog. You can then go to the source data if you like. Your reinterpretation of this sort of thing is always interesting. | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please.
Google what you just wrote.
You will see an LSE blog. You can then go to the source data if you like.
Your reinterpretation of this sort of thing is always interesting."I've read it.... It says 62% of 18 to 29 year olds voted remain in 1975, and 72% of 30 to 44 year olds voted remain. By 2016 these would have been in the 59 plus bracket. 64% of over 65s voted to leave (yougov, June 27 2016). So from 62% to 72% voting to remain to 64% voting to leave.... You're right- a marginal change! | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications.
Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to.
Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them.yeah interesting read even more convinced that we should leave now.
None of it supports your point about it being purely about trade.
The information from both sides was better informed and presented than this time around though."No mention of an eu parliament and hundreds of mep,s can see a reference to two commissioners who would lose their jobs and infact if you read the leaflet to the thoughtful British elector it makes reference to the fact that it would end up as a usa of europe and this fact has hardly been mentioned i wonder why.  | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications.
Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to.
Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them.yeah interesting read even more convinced that we should leave now.
None of it supports your point about it being purely about trade.
The information from both sides was better informed and presented than this time around though.No mention of an eu parliament and hundreds of mep,s can see a reference to two commissioners who would lose their jobs and infact if you read the leaflet to the thoughtful British elector it makes reference to the fact that it would end up as a usa of europe and this fact has hardly been mentioned i wonder why. "We were already in the EU in 1975. It was hardly hidden. Treaty of Rome: ARTICLE 4 1. The tasks entrusted to the Community shall be carried out by the following institutions: an ASSEMBLY [EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT], a COUNCIL, a COMMISSION, a COURT OF JUSTICE. Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty. 2. The Council and the Commission shall be assisted by an economic and Social Committee acting in an advisory capacity. You've just quoted the leaflet about ending up as the USA so the information was there if that's what you believe. You've just proved that all views were available. Not "just economic". | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please.
Google what you just wrote.
You will see an LSE blog. You can then go to the source data if you like.
Your reinterpretation of this sort of thing is always interesting.
I've read it.... It says 62% of 18 to 29 year olds voted remain in 1975, and 72% of 30 to 44 year olds voted remain.
By 2016 these would have been in the 59 plus bracket. 64% of over 65s voted to leave (yougov, June 27 2016).
So from 62% to 72% voting to remain to 64% voting to leave.... You're right- a marginal change!"I am right. That's a 10% swing. That's not exactly huge. It's not that many people relative to the population. Not far from the 4% difference right? With a global recession, austerity, decades of blaming everything on the EU and targeted advertising...ta data! | |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please.
Google what you just wrote.
You will see an LSE blog. You can then go to the source data if you like.
Your reinterpretation of this sort of thing is always interesting.
I've read it.... It says 62% of 18 to 29 year olds voted remain in 1975, and 72% of 30 to 44 year olds voted remain.
By 2016 these would have been in the 59 plus bracket. 64% of over 65s voted to leave (yougov, June 27 2016).
So from 62% to 72% voting to remain to 64% voting to leave.... You're right- a marginal change!
I am right. That's a 10% swing. That's not exactly huge. It's not that many people relative to the population. Not far from the 4% difference right?
With a global recession, austerity, decades of blaming everything on the EU and targeted advertising...ta data!"A 10% swing? From 62% voting remain to 64% voting leave is a 10% swing? Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. | |||
"I think that there is an important distinction here though. The referendum in the 1970s was upheld, in the sense that membership was confirmed by the plebiscite, and was enacted ever since. Whist some, or indeed many may have changed their mind since 2016, the damage that would be done to the trust in democracy would be huge if we did not act on that vote. It's one reason why groups like the FN and Le Pen in France, Wilders in Holland etc have been able to build a large far right base in those countries. Referenda that were held in those countries were overturned before their results were ever enacted, and this led to disillusionment, alienation and the rise of the far right. Whatever your views throughout the referendum, beware the unintended consequences of a revocation. There was a sales pitch for the referendum saying that it would be quick, easy and economic damage would be minimal if any at all. Nobody even mentioned leaving on WTO rules as even vaguely credible. Everything has changed. Democracy allows a country to change it's mind. It did not want a hard Tory "Brexit means Brexit" leave as it returned a hung Parliament reflecting national opinion. You define what an acceptable Brexit is for the 17.4 million who voted for it, then explain how to deliver it There was a sales pitch in 1975 it was to trade with europe nothing said about an eu parliament eu court of justice or eu laws.So no different really to when we joined under false pretenses.
No. There was not. Show me the pamphlets and the newspaper headlines and documentaries.
There were plenty and they certainly made the economic case, bit they clearly said many other things both at the time of joining and at the time of the referendum it would seem.
You will, of course, choose to remember what you wish and choose to forget what is inconvenient for your narrative.
Just another repetition of a phrase.
We joined under the 1958 Treaty of Rome.
"ARTICLE 2
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and
progressively approximating the economic policies of Member States, to promote
throughout the Community a harmonious development of economic activities, a
continuous and balanced expansion, an increase in stability, an accelerated raising of the
standard of living and closer relations between the States belonging to it."
We were too stupid to understand this then we're we?We have to disagree there the referendum was sold on a lie that there was no political implications.
Based on what? You can "agree to disagree" based on an opinion not on objective data. That's all you are providing. A feeling based on your views which means that you accept only the information that you want to.
Look up: "LSE 1975 referendum leaflets" and read through them.yeah interesting read even more convinced that we should leave now.
None of it supports your point about it being purely about trade.
The information from both sides was better informed and presented than this time around though.No mention of an eu parliament and hundreds of mep,s can see a reference to two commissioners who would lose their jobs and infact if you read the leaflet to the thoughtful British elector it makes reference to the fact that it would end up as a usa of europe and this fact has hardly been mentioned i wonder why.
We were already in the EU in 1975. It was hardly hidden.
Treaty of Rome:
ARTICLE 4
1. The tasks entrusted to the Community shall be carried out by the following
institutions:
an ASSEMBLY [EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT],
a COUNCIL,
a COMMISSION,
a COURT OF JUSTICE.
Each institution shall act within the limits of the powers conferred upon it by this Treaty.
2. The Council and the Commission shall be assisted by an economic and Social
Committee acting in an advisory capacity.
You've just quoted the leaflet about ending up as the USA so the information was there if that's what you believe.
You've just proved that all views were available. Not "just economic"."Unlike today where you can just google treaty of rome im sure half the people who voted had never heard of it.Ask your mum and dad how they sourced information in those days before the net as i see by your age you was just a twinkle in there eye then.What i recall was the communist party were against it and the others were telling people if we didnt stay in the commies would over run europe and us and we couldnt rely on nato.You have to remember also there was a real threat of nuclear war and there were adverts on the tv telling you what to do if there was.Now you go on about scare tactics in the last referendum it was real in the 1st one.Anyway dont take my word for it as i know you wont so ask someone who was alive in the 70,s who you trust like mum and dad or your grandparents. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol." Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? | |||
"What about 47 million who didn't vote to leave (18 million not registered to vote, 13 million didn't vote and 16 million voted remain) But this should be in politics forum Most who didn't vote either didn't care either way or would have chosen to leave as the great unwashed have an isolation view and its all about them and maximising their benifits. " Why great unwashed,do you think your superior?Even it was true of you I should not say it here who and what do you think you are? | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? " She is baffled how she got in there she is a complete idiot | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? " And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. | |||
 | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths." Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period" So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist." It wasn't me that was or is disputing your calculations, I took issue with the way you tried to dismiss the counter argument. Whether you like it not, such a statement stinks of racism. If you are correct on your facts then you should have no need to dismiss a counter argument in such terms. Like I said already, its more a reflection on you. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist. It wasn't me that was or is disputing your calculations, I took issue with the way you tried to dismiss the counter argument. Whether you like it not, such a statement stinks of racism. If you are correct on your facts then you should have no need to dismiss a counter argument in such terms. Like I said already, its more a reflection on you." Why does what I said stink of racism? Tell me what I said that's in any way racist. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist. It wasn't me that was or is disputing your calculations, I took issue with the way you tried to dismiss the counter argument. Whether you like it not, such a statement stinks of racism. If you are correct on your facts then you should have no need to dismiss a counter argument in such terms. Like I said already, its more a reflection on you. Why does what I said stink of racism? Tell me what I said that's in any way racist." Ok Here are some facts about Dianne Abbott, none of this is a endorsement of her character and I may be repeating myself. She is the daughter of a working class couple that arrived in the UK when she was 3. So thats her start in the UK, an immigrant family, black and working class. She got a place at a grammar school and then won a place in Newham College cambridge and graduated with a first class degree from one of the most elite universities in the UK, she didn't apply she was recruited to the top tier of the british civil service and then became the UKs first black woman MP. If you can't admire her for that list of achievements, you're hard to impress. Instead what you do cite her as a standard of stupidity as a means of dismissing an opposing argument. Like I said already if you're facts are correct then you have no need to use such terms. I really don't know what else I can say to explain this to you. And if you cannot tell the difference between stats and maths or even spell the word school correctly in your putdown then I can only repeat that it stinks of racism and wilful ignorance. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist. It wasn't me that was or is disputing your calculations, I took issue with the way you tried to dismiss the counter argument. Whether you like it not, such a statement stinks of racism. If you are correct on your facts then you should have no need to dismiss a counter argument in such terms. Like I said already, its more a reflection on you. Why does what I said stink of racism? Tell me what I said that's in any way racist. Ok Here are some facts about Dianne Abbott, none of this is a endorsement of her character and I may be repeating myself. She is the daughter of a working class couple that arrived in the UK when she was 3. So thats her start in the UK, an immigrant family, black and working class. She got a place at a grammar school and then won a place in Newham College cambridge and graduated with a first class degree from one of the most elite universities in the UK, she didn't apply she was recruited to the top tier of the british civil service and then became the UKs first black woman MP. If you can't admire her for that list of achievements, you're hard to impress. Instead what you do cite her as a standard of stupidity as a means of dismissing an opposing argument. Like I said already if you're facts are correct then you have no need to use such terms. I really don't know what else I can say to explain this to you. And if you cannot tell the difference between stats and maths or even spell the word school correctly in your putdown then I can only repeat that it stinks of racism and wilful ignorance." Firstly, it was not me who mentioned about her being black... she is well known for her very loose grasp of maths and statististics. Another poster pointed out that she read history and was the first black woman MP - to which I responded by saying that does make her any good at maths. At no time have I denegrated her at all for the colour of her skin. That, I'm afraid, is all in your mind. And playing the race card for what I've said is, frankly, pathetic. Now, onto your criticism of my mispelling of the word school, and your use of this to call me ignorant. Just a quick scan of your last post in which you say this: "An endorsement", not "a endorsement" "That's her start", not "thats her start" You should put a semi-colon after UK - not a comma Cambridge has a capital C Probably best to put a full stop after the second "UK", and start a new sentence. "...what you do IS cite her..", not "...what you do cite her.." "Your facts", not "you're facts" If you're going to pick on one mispelt word, and use that to accuse someone of ignorance, you should at least ensure that what you write is not peppered with mistakes. Unless, of course, you are ignorant yourself. | |||
" Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol. Diane Abbott, the daughter of Jamaican immigrants that moved to the UK aged 3, read History at Cambridge (first), headhunted to join the first division (the smart top tier civil servants) the first black woman MP. And you're calling her stupid? That says more about you than her. Where did you go to school? And it says so much more about you that you believe reading history and being the first black female MP (or indeed, just an MP) makes someone good at maths. Ok before I go further, it is school not scool. To attempt to deride and dismiss an argument or interpretation in such a manner has a stench of racism and wilful ignorance. This isn't mathematics, its a subset of statistics relating to election results. Electoral swing is the size of change in voter support over one or more election. In a two party system swing is calculated as the average of the increase in party A(as a percentage) and the decrease in party B(as a percentage) So party A increases by 10%, party B decreases by 2. So the swing is calculated as (10+2)/2 = a swing of 6% to party A Statistics or quantitative analysis are used by any profession that has to measure and count values, for example Doctors, Social Workers and even Historical research. For example to measure births and deaths over a given time period So can you calculate the swing from 62% to remain, and 38% leave, to 36% remain and 64% leave then please? Because by my calculation, that's 26%.... Not 10%. And please don't call me a racist. It wasn't me that was or is disputing your calculations, I took issue with the way you tried to dismiss the counter argument. Whether you like it not, such a statement stinks of racism. If you are correct on your facts then you should have no need to dismiss a counter argument in such terms. Like I said already, its more a reflection on you. Why does what I said stink of racism? Tell me what I said that's in any way racist. Ok Here are some facts about Dianne Abbott, none of this is a endorsement of her character and I may be repeating myself. She is the daughter of a working class couple that arrived in the UK when she was 3. So thats her start in the UK, an immigrant family, black and working class. She got a place at a grammar school and then won a place in Newham College cambridge and graduated with a first class degree from one of the most elite universities in the UK, she didn't apply she was recruited to the top tier of the british civil service and then became the UKs first black woman MP. If you can't admire her for that list of achievements, you're hard to impress. Instead what you do cite her as a standard of stupidity as a means of dismissing an opposing argument. Like I said already if you're facts are correct then you have no need to use such terms. I really don't know what else I can say to explain this to you. And if you cannot tell the difference between stats and maths or even spell the word school correctly in your putdown then I can only repeat that it stinks of racism and wilful ignorance. Firstly, it was not me who mentioned about her being black... she is well known for her very loose grasp of maths and statististics. Another poster pointed out that she read history and was the first black woman MP - to which I responded by saying that does make her any good at maths. At no time have I denegrated her at all for the colour of her skin. That, I'm afraid, is all in your mind. And playing the race card for what I've said is, frankly, pathetic. Now, onto your criticism of my mispelling of the word school, and your use of this to call me ignorant. Just a quick scan of your last post in which you say this: "An endorsement", not "a endorsement" "That's her start", not "thats her start" You should put a semi-colon after UK - not a comma Cambridge has a capital C Probably best to put a full stop after the second "UK", and start a new sentence. "...what you do IS cite her..", not "...what you do cite her.." "Your facts", not "you're facts" If you're going to pick on one mispelt word, and use that to accuse someone of ignorance, you should at least ensure that what you write is not peppered with mistakes. Unless, of course, you are ignorant yourself. " "Doesn't make her any good at maths." | |||
| |||
"Much is made of respecting the wishes of the 17.4 million voters who chose "leave". Nothing is being said about the 17.4 million (yes, to within 30k the same number) who voted to join in the first place. A far greater proportion of the vote, and a higher proportion of the overall population, which, in 1975, was about 20% smaller. I voted against joining in 1975, in case you think I'm an arch europhile. How long does it need to be before you can stop respecting the outcome of a referendum. Because approaching 4 years now, and beyond that for sure, by the time we properly are out, is getting to be too long, for my money. You can't even exit a Windows-based programme without being ask "are you sure?". You didn't have a vote to join in 1975. The vote to join was in 1972, was decided only by Parliament, and had a majority of 112... So effectively 57 MPs forced membership on the country. Further, The European Communities Act, which was the statute actually taking us into the EEC, was passed by a majority of 8 MPs - after just 3 days debate. My mistake, memory is imperfect, I'm getting old. 1975 referendum was a leave/remain vote after joininng a couple of years before. Fact of volume of votes remains valid however. Yep, it was something like 66% to remain.... And by the referendum in 2016 those people who voted in 1975 to remain had overwhelmingly had changed their minds and the vast majority of them voted to leave. No. It was a marginal change amongst today's older people who were the most Eurosceptic at the time. Those who fought in WWII voted to remain in 1975 and have now died. Nothing that a loud statement with no data behind it cannot change the narrative on
Could you provide a source for the 1975 referendum voting demographic please.
Google what you just wrote.
You will see an LSE blog. You can then go to the source data if you like.
Your reinterpretation of this sort of thing is always interesting.
I've read it.... It says 62% of 18 to 29 year olds voted remain in 1975, and 72% of 30 to 44 year olds voted remain.
By 2016 these would have been in the 59 plus bracket. 64% of over 65s voted to leave (yougov, June 27 2016).
So from 62% to 72% voting to remain to 64% voting to leave.... You're right- a marginal change!
I am right. That's a 10% swing. That's not exactly huge. It's not that many people relative to the population. Not far from the 4% difference right?
With a global recession, austerity, decades of blaming everything on the EU and targeted advertising...ta data!
A 10% swing? From 62% voting remain to 64% voting leave is a 10% swing?
Have you graduated from the Dianne Abbott scool of mathematics? Lol."You are correct. On average a 27% swing. I wasn't paying attention. That's 6% of the population. Marginal. Ironic considering this generation saw the largest increases in incomes, wealth and leisure time in recorded history. What's to be upset about? What will improve of we leave the EU? Still not had an answer to that... | |||
