[Politics] Brexit

[Sussex Nomad]

One thing is for sure, you don't EVER put anything this massive to a vote where 50%+1 is binding. It's ridiculous. Doing so is a recipe for splitting any country. You have to make it clear from the start that major national changes require at least a certain sized majority, say 67%. David Cameron was a berk.

Is that so remainers win even after defeat? What part of democracy do people not actually get? I bet you are one of those that are pro first past the post at an election, so long as you don't lose, but woe betide a 51-49 defeat. Incidentally 50% +1 = 51%, you can type that.

 

[Juan Albion]

I'm not understanding you, sorry.

Those of us with British passports but who had been out of the country for a while were denied a vote, even though we can return any time and the country still benefits from our money. Someone somewhere decided there should be an arbitrary cutoff period at which you are no longer British enough to have a voice. 14 years and 364 days you got a vote. A day longer and you didn't. Apparently there are different classes of Brits.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

One thing is for sure, you don't EVER put anything this massive to a vote where 50%+1 is binding. It's ridiculous. Doing so is a recipe for splitting any country. You have to make it clear from the start that major national changes require at least a certain sized majority, say 67%. David Cameron was a berk.

So you want the minority to win when it suits your view

That's not how democracy works or should ever work

 

[oneillco]

Quite the charmer, aren't you.

Give him break,,,life is easy if you're thick

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Those of us with British passports but who had been out of the country for a while were denied a vote, even though we can return any time and the country still benefits from our money. Someone somewhere decided there should be an arbitrary cutoff period at which you are no longer British enough to have a voice. 14 years and 364 days you got a vote. A day longer and you didn't. Apparently there are different classes of Brits.

So why are you bothered if you don't even live here?

 

[colonies man]

Simple question.If there were a second vote the likely out come being a narrow win for remain,why would leavers except that result when remainers don't accept first vote.The whole concept of these votes is seriously flawed.

 

[Juan Albion]

Is that so remainers win even after defeat? What part of democracy do people not actually get? I bet you are one of those that are pro first past the post at an election, so long as you don't lose, but woe betide a 51-49 defeat. Incidentally 50% +1 = 51%, you can type that.

Not at all. I might even have voted for Brexit, I don't know but I didn't bother to form a definitive opinion as I was disenfranchised. But I do know that major changes to a nation need a convincing majority to be successfully implemented without the kind of division you see now. Surely you aren't trying to say I'm wrong after all the shenanigans of the last few years? ? ? BTW, this should apply to going IN to the EU as well as leaving, in case you really think I'm biased.

 

[Juan Albion]

So why are you bothered if you don't even live here?

Because I could live there tomorrow? Or any time of my choosing? Because it affects things like my pensions from the UK? Because I'm as British as you are? Because I might one day require the services of the NHS? Because I have family who still live there? How many reasons would you like?

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Not at all. I might even have voted for Brexit, I don't know but I didn't bother to form a definitive opinion as I was disenfranchised. But I do know that major changes to a nation need a convincing majority to be successfully implemented without the kind of division you see now. Surely you aren't trying to say I'm wrong after all the shenanigans of the last few years? ? ? BTW, this should apply to going IN to the EU as well as leaving, in case you really think I'm biased.

You are wrong, you are totally wrong. We have a democratic process in this country, currently being undermined by MPs. Cameron gave us a yes/no choice. It was widely known that it was first past the post. Leave was first past the post and we expected our MPs to deliver the result. All this bollocks about a second referendum is undermining our democracy, and this country will be a dangerous place if democracy is not carried out.

 

[Juan Albion]

Simple question.If there were a second vote the likely out come being a narrow win for remain,why would leavers except that result when remainers don't accept first vote.The whole concept of these votes is seriously flawed.

They shouldn't and wouldn't. That's why I've been saying that it should have been clear from the start that a SIGNIFICANT majority is required to start changes so massive. 51% causes division and bitterness (as shown on this thread), 60/40 does not. The same should apply to anything like this, including independence referendums in Scotland, Wales etc.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Because I could live there tomorrow? Or any time of my choosing? Because it affects things like my pensions from the UK? Because I'm as British as you are? Because I might one day require the services of the NHS? Because I have family who still live there? How many reasons would you like?

So... for purely selfish reasons and not living in the UK you felt, from another country to a right to vote because it may affect you. Guess what... you made your bed.

 

[oneillco]

Oh Pastafarian, I thought of many ways to reply to your idiotic comment, but then I realised that you are one of the wilfully ignorant, so what's the point?

700000 attending the march when not including exaggerations
66 million population of the UK…..actually its more if you take the Latest UN figures

that’s 1.06% attending
that 98.94% not attending

my mistake for being out by a whopping 0.06%

even making it 1m showing up its 98.5% not attending.

What does your brain maths arrive at angry little man

 

[Prettyboyshaw]

One thing is for sure, you don't EVER put anything this massive to a vote where 50%+1 is binding. It's ridiculous. Doing so is a recipe for splitting any country. You have to make it clear from the start that major national changes require at least a certain sized majority, say 67%. David Cameron was a berk.

Agreed on Cameron I think he over estimated the intelligence of the public these days...BUT a vote is a vote be it be 1 or 1m majority. Who to say you have to get 67% rather than 66? Politicians needed to sort the mess out rather than trying to get one up on each other.

 

[Juan Albion]

You are wrong, you are totally wrong. We have a democratic process in this country, currently being undermined by MPs. Cameron gave us a yes/no choice. It was widely known that it was first past the post. Leave was first past the post and we expected our MPs to deliver the result. All this bollocks about a second referendum is undermining our democracy, and this country will be a dangerous place if democracy is not carried out.

Yes, it did say it was first past the post. I'm simply saying it shouldn't have been. That was Cameron's biggest mistake (and that's saying something). I'm not commenting on a second referendum, it's pointless as it would likely be as equally close and equally divisive.

That said, democracy is all about ongoing votes. You elect, say, a Tory government. You see what they deliver. A few years later you get to say again whether they are delivering what you expected. If they didn't you vote in the Monster Raving Loony Party, or whoever you think would do better. Democracy is an ongoing process, always has been.

 

[pastafarian]

Those of us with British passports but who had been out of the country for a while were denied a vote, even though we can return any time and the country still benefits from our money. Someone somewhere decided there should be an arbitrary cutoff period at which you are no longer British enough to have a voice. 14 years and 364 days you got a vote. A day longer and you didn't. Apparently there are different classes of Brits.

This will change soon, there is already a bill out there somewhere in the parliamentary processes with gov backing to change this rule and eliminate any years away constraints.
Conservatives Abroad have been crunching the numbers for a few years now and it’s a huge vote grab winner for the Tories. Labour are massively opposed to changing the law obviously.

 

[pastafarian]

Oh Pastafarian, I thought of many ways to reply to your idiotic comment, but then I realised that you are one of the wilfully ignorant, so what's the point?

Is your calculator broken too?
https://percentagecalculator.net/

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Yes, it did say it was first past the post. I'm simply saying it shouldn't have been. That was Cameron's biggest mistake (and that's saying something). I'm not commenting on a second referendum, it's pointless as it would likely be as equally close and equally divisive.

That said, democracy is all about ongoing votes. You elect, say, a Tory government. You see what they deliver. A few years later you get to say again whether they are delivering what you expected. If they didn't you vote in the Monster Raving Loony Party, or whoever you think would do better. Democracy is an ongoing process, always has been.

Sorry I'm still not getting your argument. What is not to say we are put to a referendum (people's vote seems to be the in quote) a few years down the line? I can't remember anyone saying it isn't viable. However, for now, the majority have made a decision, and with some 35 million people voting, the biggest vote show in history, MPs have a duty to follow out the people's desire.

 

[Juan Albion]

Agreed on Cameron I think he over estimated the intelligence of the public these days...BUT a vote is a vote be it be 1 or 1m majority. Who to say you have to get 67% rather than 66? Politicians needed to sort the mess out rather than trying to get one up on each other.

It doesn't matter if it is 60/40, 66/34, 67/33 or whatever, as long as it represents a workable majority. Cameron should have picked a number, it would have been perfectly legitimate. If it had turned out 60/40 Brexit, it would be a clear mandate no-one could argue with. The government would likely not have been scared about having a second referendum on their solution either if they'd come up with a workable exit deal, knowing they had 60%+ with them from the start.

 

[birthofanorange]

Democracy is an ongoing process, always has been.

Don't be silly, it was stopped in June 2016. Year Zero.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

It doesn't matter if it is 60/40, 66/34, 67/33 or whatever, as long as it represents a workable majority. Cameron should have picked a number, it would have been perfectly legitimate. If it had turned out 60/40 Brexit, it would be a clear mandate no-one could argue with. The government would likely not have been scared about having a second referendum on their solution either if they'd come up with a workable exit deal, knowing they had 60%+ with them from the start.

So 59-41 to leave would have been a legitimate loss for the winners. Utter garbage.