Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed,
already having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like
signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too
stupid to understand how democracy works.

And who haven't read and understood what they are signing. Fancy
another 10 indecisive referendums anyone? I had assumed that Colin was
reasonably intelligent, if misguided, but I seem to have been mistaken!

On 25/06/2016 12:28, F wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

100% of the electorate had the opportunity to vote, so yes.

Well, almost. There will always be a few that have properly registered,
but who have not made it onto the list due to delays or errors in
processing. Not enough to make any difference though.

On 25/06/2016 14:12, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/06/16 11:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

here's something - how about the bunch who couldn't be arsed to vote,
bothered to vote?

It's not my problem if they are too lazy - then their view doesn't count
either way.


And what good would another referendum do if the result was the same
second time round?

That would confirm that it really was the will of the people. However, I
rather doubt it would be the same. Those who thought they were just
registering a protest by voting leave might well change their vote and
the percentage of young voters would likely increase.

We've had the vote - that should be the end of it. This ridiculous
bleating to "have another" (until "we" get it right???) is pathetic.

It'd be fully in line with past EU policy

On 25/06/2016 13:58, newshound wrote:
On 6/25/2016 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

And what good would another referendum do if the result was the same
second time round?

Because the proposal is to require a larger differential before changing
anything. Seems quite sensible to me.

No, because that is giving a built in bias that would make it nigh on
impossible to leave, while making it easy for the remain side. How would
they feel if such legislation was enacted after we left, pretty well
ensuring that we could never rejoin, even with a sizeable majority?

Where there is a simple 2-way choice, having a mimimum majority may seem
fair, but not when one choice has the advantage of being the status quo
and effectively being able to win with a minority!

On 25/06/16 15:52, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

Petitions do not have a very good record of getting results.
However, the turnout is unusually high, which should send a message to
Parliament about the strength of feeling on the subject.

I might simply indicate that they got it onto a particularly noticeable
section of social media, or that 38degrees promoted it, etc ...


Its gone round all the lefty websites and got reported by the right ones
as well


--
"Women actually are capable of being far more than the feminists will
let them."

On 25/06/16 16:31, Capitol wrote:
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culoRJednYaSMbrF9fPKnZ2dnUU78amdnZ2d@brightv iew.co.uk,
escribió:

Take off the 1M Irish votes
Why? What makes them invalid? Just because they're Irish?


Yes.

Probably a fair enough, if they are bob 'gack' geldof


--
"Anyone who believes that the laws of physics are mere social
conventions is invited to try transgressing those conventions from the
windows of my apartment. (I live on the twenty-first floor.) "

Alan Sokal

On 25/06/16 13:08, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too
stupid to understand how democracy works.

Democracy is not about half the people subjecting the other half to
their views. That isn't democracy at all.

The referendum was a **** up from the beginning, should ever have been
50% threshold, should never have been during the footy. there wasn't any
need for it in the first place except that Cameron thought he could
silence the Tory Right.

Now we have a **** up which is about to become a monstrous mega-****-up
when it becomes clear that Cameron (I love this country) despite leading
the Cons and Unionist Party is causing the break up of the United
Kingdom (which nobody thought they were voting for) and when they put
the border posts back across the North of Ireland again the talk of the
EEC being the reason for peace in Europe will become frighteningly and
obviously true as people begin to lose their lives for the rank
stupidity of Cameron and Farage and their ignorant little Englander
Followers

Tim W

On 25/06/16 17:41, TimW wrote:
On 25/06/16 13:08, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too
stupid to understand how democracy works.

Democracy is not about half the people subjecting the other half to
their views. That isn't democracy at all.

The referendum was a **** up from the beginning, should ever have been
50% threshold, should never have been during the footy. there wasn't any
need for it in the first place except that Cameron thought he could
silence the Tory Right.

Now we have a **** up which is about to become a monstrous mega-****-up
when it becomes clear that Cameron (I love this country) despite leading
the Cons and Unionist Party is causing the break up of the United
Kingdom (which nobody thought they were voting for) and when they put
the border posts back across the North of Ireland again the talk of the
EEC being the reason for peace in Europe will become frighteningly and
obviously true as people begin to lose their lives for the rank
stupidity of Cameron and Farage and their ignorant little Englander
Followers

Tim W

I suggest you see a psychiatrist with that paranoia


--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On Saturday, 25 June 2016 13:08:41 UTC+1, Richard wrote:
WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too stupid
to understand how democracy works.

You must live somewhere very intellectual.

Round here 1546 people would have difficulty understanding how a rubbish bin works.

Owain

On 25/06/2016 11:20, Nightjar wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215



It may have been reasonable to define some validity rules - minimum
turnout, minimum majority, etc - when the referendum was called.

But you can't do it after the event, for God's sake!

The way it was defined just needed a simple majority - so the winning
side only needed *one* more vote than the other side. In the event, they
got 1.3 million more votes!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?


If that's how the rules are defined - yes!

If 25% of the population chooses not to take part, that's *their*
problem. It doesn't detract from the decision taken by the 75% who *do*
bother to vote.

It's far more democratic than our first-past-the-post parliamentary
election system - which we had the opportunity to change a few years
ago, but flunked it!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25-Jun-16 3:13 PM, Phil L wrote:
....
If the feeling was as strong as you say, why hasn't the petition got 16m
signatures? - the answer is that the majority of them know they've been beat
and accept it, you should too

Would you be giving the same advice to Farage et al had the vote gone
the other way?


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 25/06/2016 13:28, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 11:29:12 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In , Nightjar
wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy.

No, they are *using* democracy to potentially make democracy better.

Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

Whoosh? ;-(

And what good would another referendum do if the result was the same
second time round?

Because it would have to be a 'different' result to be the same as
this one and if it passed the second one (with a more representative
indication of the will of the / a real majority, not more like 50:50)
then they would have to proceed as is.

Maybe, a few days after post leave, some people might have a better
idea of the implications and may well vote differently.

All of this is just what I have been saying all along and it seems
more people think the same (so far) than made the difference between
Leave of Remain? ;-)

Cheers, T i m




So which bit of "once in a generation" - or "out is out" - or "there's
no going back" - didn't they understand?

--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 13:58, newshound wrote:
On 6/25/2016 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all called
Charlotte Church, perhaps?

And what good would another referendum do if the result was the same
second time round?

Because the proposal is to require a larger differential before changing
anything. Seems quite sensible to me.

Too late. Can't move the goalposts *after* the event. Should have
thought of this earlier and built it into the referendum legislation.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 14:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Andy wrote:
Registration was extended by a couple of days for those lazy enough not
to get on the register.

That is your slant. It was actually extended because the site crashed due
to high demand.


Surely, anyone serious about wanting to vote wouldn't have left it to
the last minute to register, anyway.

But perhaps you think it would be OK to close a polling station early? For
those who couldn't be bothered to vote at a time you think they should
have?


I believe that the rules now allow anyone who is in the queue to vote
before 10pm still to vote even if it's actually after 10pm when they do
so. What more do you want?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/16 18:00, Roger Mills wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:20, Nightjar wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215



It may have been reasonable to define some validity rules - minimum
turnout, minimum majority, etc - when the referendum was called.

But you can't do it after the event, for God's sake!

The way it was defined just needed a simple majority - so the winning
side only needed *one* more vote than the other side. In the event, they
got 1.3 million more votes!

I don't have crystal ball but I am sure that the referendum is no way
the end of it. It is very doubtful that we will ever have a government
that is prepared to act on the result and actually leave.

Even the people who voted leave - half of them will change their minds
when they see the econimic catastrophe that they have created, none of
them will feel good about breaking up the United Kingdom, quite a lot
will just die in the next 12 months, so any government tying to actually
implement a Brexit will be doing so against and not with the support of
a big majority of voters.

What a mess Cameron has made.

TW

Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

On 25-Jun-16 11:29 AM, Tim Streater wrote:

In , Nightjar
wrote:


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed,
already having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like
signing it: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

So, over a million who don't understand democracy. Are they all
called Charlotte Church, perhaps?

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for
the whole?


Apparently it is. what percentage voted Conservative last time or the time
before?

(answer: 36% in 2015 and 36% in 2010)



And what good would another referendum do if the result was the same
second time round?

That would confirm that it really was the will of the people.
However, I rather doubt it would be the same. Those who thought they
were just registering a protest by voting leave might well change
their vote and the percentage of young voters would likely increase.

and the percentage of 'leave' voters would also increase, negating the
remain voters efforts.

There isn't going to be a second referendum, it's done and dusted




There also isn't going to be an election this year. The
Conservatives have a majority and won't risk it until 2020.

On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

Yup

On 25/06/16 18:56, soup wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

Yup

No, it's a farce.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 16:08:10 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Interesting to speculate.

Not for anyone in the real world.

The online petition is now way above the number needed for it to be
considered by parliament.

If it was, there are more MPs pro EU than anti.

It gets passed.

Dream on, straw-clinger.

On 25/06/16 19:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:58:26 +0100, TimW wrote:

On 25/06/16 18:56, soup wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

Yup

No, it's a farce.

From which we gather you were on the losing side. I doubt you'd be
quite so vociferous about how farcical it was if the result had been
the other way around, but with the same numbers.

Major constitutional change requires a weighty mandate. It's a well
established principle, otherwise we are all over the place (which we
are). We have a tiny majority, nothing even resembling a mandate for
leave which will be reversed in a month. I don't blame Farage. Dave has
really badly ****ed up because he valued power and the unity of his
party before everything else.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:12:08 +0100, Roger Mills
wrote:

snip

Maybe, a few days after post leave, some people might have a better
idea of the implications and may well vote differently.

All of this is just what I have been saying all along and it seems
more people think the same (so far) than made the difference between
Leave of Remain? ;-)


So which bit of "once in a generation" - or "out is out" - or "there's
no going back" - didn't they understand?

All of it Roger.

How many people still get done for driving without a seatbelt, or
using their phones without hands free? They know it's illegal but they
still do it?

So how many of those same people would have *seriously* considered all
of the implications (to the point of not being able to decide one way
or another but wanting to vote so spoiling their paper like I did)?

How many people have I repeatedly recommend they 'do a backup' of
their valuable date but who don't and then later lose it all? Do they
carry on without the backup because they are fully aware of all the
mechanics (and therefore consequences) or because they aren't?

Even those who *thought* they had a good idea what might happen are
probably now a little bit surprised about *all* of the potential
shockwave's, from splitting up the United Kingdom to potentially
destroying much of the EU.

All they were told is 'we will be better off out', we pay in £350,000
a week ('that could be a new hospital a week') and leaving will stop
all the immigrants getting in, taking or jobs and raping our wives and
daughters. ;-(

However, those (scare) tactics are often what does grab peoples
attention and something I have used to 'hammer home' how important
doing a backup is on their personal data. The (true) tale of having to
explain to some parents that 'yes, you have just lost all the photos
of the kids you ever took' *sometimes* get's the point across. You
have to put things in real terms as they would affect them (the
worst). And by that I mean with the truth, not FUD (or we may all
suffer the consequences).

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/2016 18:46, TimW wrote:

I don't have crystal ball but I am sure that the referendum is no way
the end of it. It is very doubtful that we will ever have a government
that is prepared to act on the result and actually leave.

Even the people who voted leave - half of them will change their minds
when they see the econimic catastrophe that they have created, none of
them will feel good about breaking up the United Kingdom, quite a lot
will just die in the next 12 months, so any government tying to actually
implement a Brexit will be doing so against and not with the support of
a big majority of voters.

What a mess Cameron has made.

I especially agree with the last point.

For something as huge as this, it is arguable that the bar should be set
to at least 50% of the electorate regardless of how many vote.

--
Rod

Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 3:13 PM, Phil L wrote:
...
If the feeling was as strong as you say, why hasn't the petition got
16m signatures? - the answer is that the majority of them know
they've been beat and accept it, you should too

Would you be giving the same advice to Farage et al had the vote gone
the other way?

Yes, we can't replay every football or cricket match that doesn't go the way
it's expected to go neither, the losing side has to accept defeat

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 12:52:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:08:34 +0100, Richard wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too
stupid to understand how democracy works.

Some nutters are claiming that a large number of Google searches for
"what is the EU for?" (or something like that) is proof that the voters
didn't understand what they were voting on. It doesn't seem to have
occurred to these morons that this was most likely just inquisitive
children trying to find out what all the fuss was about!!

Bingo! ;-)

Like I said, a touch screen multiple choice 'Do you have a f'g clue'
pop political awareness test before the Vote now button pops up. 7/10
or less and no treat. ;-)

I believe we, as a nation are as apathetic towards politics as we are
religion and that's because our relatively safe and comfortable lives,
allows for that.

Hence, when something comes up (like this) we aren't ready for it.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/16 15:13, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed,
already having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like

... wasting their time.


Possibly. Petitions do not have a very good record of getting results.
However, the turnout is unusually high, which should send a message to
Parliament about the strength of feeling on the subject.

They already know the strength of feeling on the subject - 16m people have
just put an X in the box to let them know, just like 17m put their X in the
box to let them know the opposite.


If the feeling was as strong as you say, why hasn't the petition got 16m
signatures? - the answer is that the majority of them know they've been beat
and accept it, you should too

the answer is that the petition itself is obviously a waste of time but
the business is totally unfinished. This has been an idiot's referendum
won by lies and lost by arrogance, no kind of a mandate and a
catastrophe for the UK. Mark my words.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:41:28 +0100, TimW wrote:

Now we have a **** up which is about to become a monstrous mega-****-up

Er, no. It's YOU and your ilk that are ****ed-up, because you *still*
want to impose your loony collectivist views against the will of the
majority who have clearly stated they want nothing more to do with this
doomed experiment.
You should be bloody grateful that when the whole rotten lot collapses we
shall be insulated from the worst of the collateral damage thanks to this
very sensible and circumspect decision.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:00:03 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

It may have been reasonable to define some validity rules - minimum
turnout, minimum majority, etc - when the referendum was called.

But you can't do it after the event, for God's sake!

You can if you're a loony lefty and divorced from reality.

The way it was defined just needed a simple majority - so the winning
side only needed *one* more vote than the other side. In the event, they
got 1.3 million more votes!

"A commanding majority" I believe it's called.

En el artículo ,
Capitol escribió:

Why? What makes them invalid? Just because they're Irish?

Yes.

Ah. OK. As you were.

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) systemd: the Linux version of Windows 10
(")_(")

TimW wrote:

Major constitutional change requires a weighty mandate. It's a well
established principle, otherwise we are all over the place (which we
are).

Never has in the past.

TimW wrote:
On 25/06/16 15:13, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed,
already having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like

... wasting their time.


Possibly. Petitions do not have a very good record of getting results.
However, the turnout is unusually high, which should send a message to
Parliament about the strength of feeling on the subject.

They already know the strength of feeling on the subject - 16m people
have
just put an X in the box to let them know, just like 17m put their X
in the
box to let them know the opposite.


If the feeling was as strong as you say, why hasn't the petition got 16m
signatures? - the answer is that the majority of them know they've
been beat
and accept it, you should too

the answer is that the petition itself is obviously a waste of time
but the business is totally unfinished. This has been an idiot's
referendum won by lies and lost by arrogance, no kind of a mandate and
a catastrophe for the UK. Mark my words.




Loser.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 19:50:01 +0100, TimW wrote:

On 25/06/16 15:13, Phil L wrote:
Nightjar wrote:
On 25-Jun-16 11:30 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Nightjar wrote:

It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed,
already having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like

... wasting their time.


Possibly. Petitions do not have a very good record of getting results.
However, the turnout is unusually high, which should send a message to
Parliament about the strength of feeling on the subject.

They already know the strength of feeling on the subject - 16m people have
just put an X in the box to let them know, just like 17m put their X in the
box to let them know the opposite.


If the feeling was as strong as you say, why hasn't the petition got 16m
signatures? - the answer is that the majority of them know they've been beat
and accept it, you should too

the answer is that the petition itself is obviously a waste of time but
the business is totally unfinished. This has been an idiot's referendum
won by lies and lost by arrogance, no kind of a mandate

Yup.

and a
catastrophe for the UK.

And not good for much of the EU either.

Mark my words.

I hope not but fear you could be right.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:53:20 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

snip ranty expletives

because you *still*
want to impose your loony collectivist views

What, just here on Usenet?

against the will of the
majority who have clearly stated they want nothing more to do with this
doomed experiment.

You call a 4% difference the people 'clearly stating' something do
you? More like 'by the skin of their teeth' and had the truths been
told, potentially a very different result.

You should be bloody grateful that when the whole rotten lot collapses

A foregone conclusion then? Intentionally collapsed scrum you mean?

we
shall be insulated from the worst of the collateral damage thanks to this
very sensible and circumspect decision.

You 'hope' we will be you mean (or please cite the guarantees).

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/2016 18:58, TimW wrote:
On 25/06/16 18:56, soup wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision for the
whole?

Yup

No, it's a farce.

So how would *you* define democracy?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:55:12 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:00:03 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

It may have been reasonable to define some validity rules - minimum
turnout, minimum majority, etc - when the referendum was called.

But you can't do it after the event, for God's sake!

You can if you're a loony lefty and divorced from reality.

The way it was defined just needed a simple majority - so the winning
side only needed *one* more vote than the other side. In the event, they
got 1.3 million more votes!

"A commanding majority" I believe it's called.

4% difference between Leave and Remain. 'By the skin of their teeth'
morelike.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/2016 19:37, TimW wrote:
On 25/06/16 19:13, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:58:26 +0100, TimW wrote:

On 25/06/16 18:56, soup wrote:
On 25/06/2016 11:42, Nightjar wrote:

Is it democracy when 37.4% of the electorate can make a decision
for the
whole?

Yup

No, it's a farce.

From which we gather you were on the losing side. I doubt you'd be
quite so vociferous about how farcical it was if the result had been
the other way around, but with the same numbers.

Major constitutional change requires a weighty mandate. It's a well
established principle, otherwise we are all over the place (which we
are). We have a tiny majority, nothing even resembling a mandate for
leave which will be reversed in a month. I don't blame Farage. Dave has
really badly ****ed up because he valued power and the unity of his
party before everything else.

They could have framed the referendum legislation in a way which
required more than a simple majority to cause us to leave. But they
*didn't* - end of!!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"T i m" wrote in message ...

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 12:52:54 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 13:08:34 +0100, Richard wrote:

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...


It doesn't actually need any more signatures to get discussed, already
having over a million signatures, but if anybody feels like signing it:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215


WTF?!! Right now there are 1546 people in my constituency who are too
stupid to understand how democracy works.

Some nutters are claiming that a large number of Google searches for
"what is the EU for?" (or something like that) is proof that the voters
didn't understand what they were voting on. It doesn't seem to have
occurred to these morons that this was most likely just inquisitive
children trying to find out what all the fuss was about!!

Bingo! ;-)

Like I said, a touch screen multiple choice 'Do you have a f'g clue'
pop political awareness test before the Vote now button pops up. 7/10
or less and no treat. ;-)

I believe we, as a nation are as apathetic towards politics as we are
religion and that's because our relatively safe and comfortable lives,
allows for that.

Hence, when something comes up (like this) we aren't ready for it.

If one is stupid/apathetic/simply pathetic, tough.

On 25/06/16 14:24, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Noi, its that certain political forces dont see democracy as a way to
settle differences but as a way to be used until they get what they want.

Its the Violent Elizabeth Bott Lefty**** poodles who are typically
engaged in it

I have a suggestion that should make everyone happy.

Let Sturgeon have her 2nd referendum, leave the UK, join the EU (in some
years, probably after Albania).

Then all the thick stupid Special Snowflakes who don't know how to vote
in a binary referendum and then whine about it afterwards, can sod off
to Scotland and do the rest of us a favour...

On 25/06/16 16:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

The BREXIT lot would be incandescent. At an example of 'sovereignty' they
wanted oh so badly.


That's an extremely dangerous place to be: expect a rapid shift to UKIP
or other far right candidates in the next election.

On 25/06/16 17:41, TimW wrote:
On 25/06/16 13:08, Richard wrote:

Democracy is not about half the people subjecting the other half to
their views. That isn't democracy at all.

Got news for you sweety - that's exactly how it works.