On Fri, 19 Jan 2018 17:54:18 +0000, Andy Burns
wrote:

T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a
specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's
nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

It may be to you because you obviously consider such still to be
democratic.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

Or you could just re-phrase that as an unloaded question, if you are
actually interested in the answer?

you can't really talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Well ... yes. If you don't participate you have literally *not* had
your say when you had the chance to.

That was then, you are trying to limit my freedom of speech now.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep
raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3
voted against" when it just isn't.

No, I have never said the two were the same, ever. What you seem to be
missing (intentionally or otherwise) is the spirit, the human / real
world feeling, cause and effect behind / with all of this. We aren't
asking the pupils to vote for the best teacher, we are asking them
(us, where the vast majority have the intellectual and factual insight
of children on this matter) to decide if they should demolish the
existing school and move into another (yet unknown) one.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying
pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a
result is a result.

And you would be doing it without me because *that* wouldn't impact
millions of people into the distant future? ;-(

So, we asked people to make a binary decision about an analogue
subject without giving them any facts.

If you consider those grounds to be likely (at least) to unsure we
have a good chance of coming out of this better off AND that any
outcome to still democratically reflect the actual will of the people,
they we are obviously working from two completely different bases.

Mr Davis said: “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be
a democracy”.

So, given 'some' were tricked into voting without actually knowing
what they were voting for (some of us realised we didn't have the
facts and therefore *couldn't* vote), or didn't need to be tricked
because they were already on a crusade for some reason or another
(many bogus and some pretty unpleasant) and with no countable 'We
don't know what we are voting for yet' (defer referendum till after we
do or at least know more) option, many (a third!) didn't vote at all.

So, ignoring what has happened Andy ... and the majority margin thing
.... does the position you see us in now sit comfortable with you?

Do you *believe* a fairly informed public have exercised their
democratic vote and we are *all* now heading in the same positive
direction? Or is it that the whole thing is a mess and could easily be
just nullified, we wait for the final deal and *then* give people the
chance to *actually* vote on the *facts*?

The big question shouldn't be why I didn't vote but how anyone
(outside the fanatics) did.

Heads or tails anyone? ;-)

Cheers, T i m