On 25/06/2016 19:40, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:12:08 +0100, Roger
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


The exaggerations from both sides got a lot of exposure - and rebuttals
- during the campaign but it was always made perfectly clear that we
were only going to get one shot at this.

There was certainly some market volatility on the first day - but that
is to be expected, and will soon settle.

Despite all the froth from the SNP, it's very unlikely that they would
win - or even hold - a second independence referendum. With the dramatic
fall in oil prices since the first one, they'd be mad. Also, they'd be
joining the EU as a new country - and would have to adopt the Euro and
be in the Schengen area. Add to that the fact that the question in the
first referendum was biased towards 'Yes' - but they'd have to have a
more neutral question (e.g. stay vs leave) in a subsequent one - so it
would be even harder to win.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Roger Mills" wrote in message ...

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?

I blame 'care in the community'.

On 25/06/16 18:12, Roger Mills wrote:

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


I suspect most of the whingers are Generation Snowflake - who have never
been told "no", or been told off, or ever had to take any personal
responsibility for anything.

On 25/06/16 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.

It's the best we have.

Or would you prefer Kindly Uncle Dave to simple tell you what to do?

On 25/06/2016 19:42, polygonum wrote:
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.


Not unreasonable. But you have to do it up front - you can't introduce
rules like that *after* the event.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/16 19:37, 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). 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.

And if he doesn't honour the result, he will have damaged UK Politics
beyond the worst that could ever happen by invoking Article 50.

Because he will have said:

Here's the vote - 2 options;

Think carefully, there's no going back or second chances;

The result, if exit, will be implemented quickly.


AND THEN IGNORED THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY.

That's what tinpot dictatorships do.

On 25/06/16 19:42, polygonum wrote:
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.



Why? That'll simply bias one outcome (the status quo).

Abstaining is abstaining. It implies nothing.

On 25/06/16 19:50, TimW wrote:

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.



I voted in this referendum on the basis I get to live with the result.

Therefore I wish to live with the result. And I would have said the same
if the situation had been reversed.

On 25/06/2016 19:48, Phil L wrote:
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



You certainly can't move the goalposts after the event.

However, had Leave lost, I think they may have been able to mount an
objection based on the fact that the game wasn't played according to the
agreed rules:

1. Extending the registration period may have resulted in more Remainers
than Leavers registering after the official deadline

2. A case could be made for saying that it was unfair for taxpayer's
money to be spent on Remain propaganda and for civil servants to be able
to advise Remain ministers whilst withholding information from their
Leave colleagues
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 19:53, Julian Barnes wrote:
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.


+1
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 19:55, 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.


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

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

I had no objection whatsoever to the propsal that Tony Blair should be
charged for war crimes. And he only destroyed another country, Iraq.

If they succeed in their stated aims then these opportunstic clowns will
have destroyed their own


michael adams

....

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Roger Mills
wrote:

snip

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).


The exaggerations from both sides got a lot of exposure - and rebuttals
- during the campaign but it was always made perfectly clear that we
were only going to get one shot at this.

Yeahbut I'm not sure how much that particular penny dropped amongst
many? I don't think I heard a single person repeating the 'we'll only
get one chance' thing for instance.

There was certainly some market volatility on the first day - but that
is to be expected, and will soon settle.

Let's hope.

Despite all the froth from the SNP, it's very unlikely that they would
win - or even hold - a second independence referendum.

I thought it was already in hand Roger?

With the dramatic
fall in oil prices since the first one, they'd be mad. Also, they'd be
joining the EU as a new country - and would have to adopt the Euro and
be in the Schengen area.

I'm not sure either would bother them (with all that space [1] and
Ireland using the Euro).

Add to that the fact that the question in the
first referendum was biased towards 'Yes' - but they'd have to have a
more neutral question (e.g. stay vs leave) in a subsequent one - so it
would be even harder to win.

I think they might be more interested in the EU safety net than
unlinking from England. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[1] And with worse weather than England and most of the EU, who would
want to go there? ;-)

On the weather thing ... I was talking to a Latvian lady the other day
who is working here as a housekeeper and she said she has to take
Vitamin D tablets because she's not getting sunshine she's used to in
Latvia.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/16 22:13, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

And this time our "superior masters" (Oh puhlease!) called a referendum.

Now everyone should man up. live with the will of the majority and stop
being such cry babies.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

I had no objection whatsoever to the propsal that Tony Blair should be
charged for war crimes. And he only destroyed another country, Iraq.

If they succeed in their stated aims then these opportunstic clowns will
have destroyed their own

Or made done something we'll look back on and be grateful for.

How's your crystal ball?

On 25/06/16 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.

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



Nah. I voted remain but the you can't change the rules *after* the vote.
For better or worse, the deed is done.

Tim

--
Trolls AND TROLL FEEDERS all go in my kill file

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:34:46 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 25/06/16 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.

Can you show me where michael mentions anything like that?

Sorry if 'a discussion' on this subject gets you all defensive. ;-(

If you got what you wanted, and are wholly positive regarding the
outcome, why do you even care?

Maybe you are frightened that if the government back out of the
promise to take the UK out of the EU and / or have another referendum
that 'now' the outcome might be different. 'Now' more people better
realise / understand the consequences?

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/16 22:46, Tim+ 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 signing it:

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



Nah. I voted remain but the you can't change the rules *after* the vote.
For better or worse, the deed is done.

Tim


It's not quite done.


Cameron has reneged on triggering Article 50 himself, and is probably
hoping everyone will change their mind in 3 months.

When/if that happens, British politics is dead in the water. Or UKIP
will win some seats at the next election, along with a general surge in
far right party members.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/16 22:13, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

And this time our "superior masters" (Oh puhlease!) called a referendum.

Now everyone should man up. live with the will of the majority and stop being such cry
babies.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

I had no objection whatsoever to the propsal that Tony Blair should be
charged for war crimes. And he only destroyed another country, Iraq.

If they succeed in their stated aims then these opportunstic clowns will
have destroyed their own

Or made done something we'll look back on and be grateful for.

How's your crystal ball?

There's no crystal ball needed.

Why do you think Johnson, Gove, IDS have all gone into hiding ?
Along with Osborne.

They never actually expected to win as they knew the inevitable
consequences if the UK ever decided to actually leave the EU.
So Johnson Gove and IDS don't want to face the inevitable
questions both as to why what they promised can't actually
be delivered straight aways as they claimed; and what will be
the ineviable consequences for the UK economy and things
like inward investment, of which the UK is the largest
current beneficiary within the EU, once the UK leaves

While Osbornes budget thing may initially have been seen as a
threat that doesn't mean he's not been closeted with his
officials since friday morning weighing up the various
measures thought necessary to mitigate any immediate threat
or loss of confidence in the UK and sterling from abroad.


michael adams

....

On 25/06/16 22:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:34:46 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 25/06/16 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.

Can you show me where michael mentions anything like that?

Er - everything he says is the sound of a poor loser.


Sorry if 'a discussion' on this subject gets you all defensive. ;-(

It doesn't. What gets my goat are a majority 1.3 million people voting
one thing, and 2 million people (presumably those who voted for the
other thing) starting a petition whining about how it's not fair, or
it's not what people really voted for, or it's all the media's and/or
government's fault.

We voted. The vote was to leave, unambiguously, by the rules. End of.
And to the whiners: Grow up, man up, and get on with securing the future.


If you got what you wanted, and are wholly positive regarding the
outcome, why do you even care?

Because I have this nasty lurking suspicion that Article 50 is not going
to get signed. The PM has already reneged on a strongly implied
statement that he would do it quickly.


Maybe you are frightened that if the government back out of the
promise to take the UK out of the EU and / or have another referendum
that 'now' the outcome might be different. 'Now' more people better
realise / understand the consequences?

No - I am afraid that a fair and straight forward vote will be cast
aside because some cry babies, immature idiots and lazy thick people
claimed they didn't understand it.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:56:09 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , TimW wrote:

The referendum was a **** up from the beginning, should ever have been
50% threshold, should never have been during the footy.

**** the footy.

+1

On 25/06/16 22:56, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 25/06/16 22:13, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

And this time our "superior masters" (Oh puhlease!) called a referendum.

Now everyone should man up. live with the will of the majority and stop being such cry
babies.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

I had no objection whatsoever to the propsal that Tony Blair should be
charged for war crimes. And he only destroyed another country, Iraq.

If they succeed in their stated aims then these opportunstic clowns will
have destroyed their own

Or made done something we'll look back on and be grateful for.

How's your crystal ball?

There's no crystal ball needed.

Yes there is - because you nor anyone else can possibly predict the
future with any certainty.

The vote was not about predicting the future. The vote was about
choosing a direction to take towards an always uncertain future.

Why do you think Johnson, Gove, IDS have all gone into hiding ?

Because they are spineless *******? However, you are right - all very quiet.

Along with Osborne.

He's just a slimy toerag hedging his bets and hoping no one will notice
he was backing Cameron until Friday.

They never actually expected to win as they knew the inevitable
consequences if the UK ever decided to actually leave the EU.
So Johnson Gove and IDS don't want to face the inevitable
questions both as to why what they promised can't actually
be delivered straight aways as they claimed; and what will be
the ineviable consequences for the UK economy and things
like inward investment, of which the UK is the largest
current beneficiary within the EU, once the UK leaves

Well, tough titty. One of them had better man up and take the helm and
get on with it.

Christ, I despair of some of the spineless useless idiots this country
possesses.

While Osbornes budget thing may initially have been seen as a
threat that doesn't mean he's not been closeted with his
officials since friday morning weighing up the various
measures thought necessary to mitigate any immediate threat
or loss of confidence in the UK and sterling from abroad.


michael adams

....

On 25/06/16 23:04, Martin Barclay wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:56:09 +0100, Tim Streater wrote:

In article , TimW wrote:

The referendum was a **** up from the beginning, should ever have been
50% threshold, should never have been during the footy.

**** the footy.

+1


+20

On 25/06/2016 21:36, Richard wrote:
"Roger Mills" wrote in message ...



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

I blame 'care in the community'.


Where did that feature in the referendum campaigns?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"TimW" wrote in message
...
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.

Bet they do when Cameron is replaced by Boris and the rest of the
MPs realise what would happen to them at the next election if they
were actually stupid enough to ignore a referendum result like that.
Even the stupidest of them would realise that enough of them would
be replaced by UKIP MPs who would get Britain out of the EU, so
they might as well get Britain out of the EU and keep their seats.

Even the people who voted leave - half of them will change their minds
when they see the econimic catastrophe that they have created,

There won't be any economic catastrophe. There wont even be
a recession anything like what was seen in 2008 and after it.

none of them will feel good about breaking up the United Kingdom,

It won't be breaking up. Scotland won't get another referendum,
because hardly any politicians except Cameron have one on leaving.

quite a lot will just die in the next 12 months,

Bugger all will.

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.

Fantasy.

What a mess Cameron has made.

By daring to let the voters say what they want to happen ? Thanks
for that completely superfluous proof of where you are coming from.

On 25/06/16 16:08, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el artÃ*culo , Tim Watts
escribió:

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.

If the Scottish can do it, why shouldn't we?

for the humour-impaired (plenty of those here)

Interesting to speculate.
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.


It gets debated, no bill, no 'passed'. And why would they want a rerun?
Having thrown just about everything and everyone into Project Fear (and
now Project Whinge?) and lost why expect a different result next time €”
as against annoying even more people with telling how they should vote
and 'get it right this time o else'.




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



--
djc

(–€Ì¿Ä¹Ì¯–€Ì¿ Ì¿)
No low-hanging fruit, just a lot of small berries up a tall tree.

On 25/06/2016 23:01, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Roger Mills
wrote:

On 25/06/2016 19:48, Phil L wrote:
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

You certainly can't move the goalposts after the event.

However, had Leave lost, I think they may have been able to mount an
objection based on the fact that the game wasn't played according to
the agreed rules:

1. Extending the registration period may have resulted in more
Remainers than Leavers registering after the official deadline

2. A case could be made for saying that it was unfair for taxpayer's
money to be spent on Remain propaganda and for civil servants to be
able to advise Remain ministers whilst withholding information from
their Leave colleagues

Even with all that, and the government orchestrating wodges of bigwigs
to write to the Times etc saying how wonderful that EU is and how
Junkcer is related to Jesus Christ, they *still* lost.


Indeed. Just think what the margin might have been had they played fair.
[I suspect that the unfortunate murder of Jo Cox caused more loss of
momentum to Leave than to Remain, and resulted in a slight sympathy
dividend for the 'establishment']. Taking everything into account, the
percentage of votes for Leave could have been substantially higher under
different circumstances.

One reason why Cameron lost was that his desperate measures to persuade
uncle Tom Cobley to support him - with honours and back-handers - only
served to emphasise the weakness of his case.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

No - I am afraid that a fair and straight forward vote will be cast aside because some
cry babies, immature idiots and lazy thick people claimed they didn't understand it.

You just don't get it do you ?

Or maybe you do, and don't care.

A big factor in this referendum, unless you want to claim
otherwise is fear of immigration.

Now whether you like it or not, and whatever the opinions
of individual citzens may be, among all the advanced nations
at least, there's always been a tacit agreement that immigration
itself is never made an explicit election issue. Basically
because it stirs up emotions which aren't the best basis
on which to base sound decisions. However People can assume
what the position of the various parties is likley to be by
speeches by MP's etc.

Similarly immigration is never made an issue because doing so
can generate dilslike of existing immigrants, hardly the
wisest thing to do in a country such a the UK with a
large 1st, 2nd, and 3rd generation immigrant population.

Oh BTW and the fact that many Indians IME consider West Indians
to be typically stupid and gullible, while conversely many
West Indians consider Indians to be typically sly and self serving
is neither here nor there. There's no point IMO in
throwing even more fat on the fire.

Basically the judgement of anyone making decisions
on the basis of an emotional aversion to immigrants, which
could have a catastrophic effect on the UK economy and the
country itself, simply isn't to be trusted. It really is
as simple as that.

And as it happens voting out hasn't put a stop to the
uncontrolled immigration in any case. Unless the UK is willing
to accept a rubbish deal we can all look forward to a further
two years worth all rushing to beat any deadline, as I
predicted a week or so ago. And if anyone thinks the EU
including the likes of Poland will grant the UK a deal
allowing deportations they really are living in cloud cuckoo
land.

Basically everyone agrees uncontrolled immigration is a
bad thing. But as with the nephew advising the old man
about a video card a week ago, any idiot can identify a
problem. The difficulty lies in coming up with a solution

But it takes and even bigger idiot to both identify
a problem which is obvious to everyone, and then propose
a solution which will actually make things worse.


michael adams

....

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:01:38 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 25/06/16 22:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:34:46 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 25/06/16 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.

Can you show me where michael mentions anything like that?

Er - everything he says is the sound of a poor loser.

To you I'm guessing. No actual proof / facts then? I wonder where we
have heard that before. ;-)


Sorry if 'a discussion' on this subject gets you all defensive. ;-(

It doesn't. What gets my goat are a majority 1.3 million people voting
one thing,

But still described as 'A country divided on the news just now. Does
that sound like a positive / definitive decision in favour of one
direction to you?

and 2 million people (presumably those who voted for the
other thing) starting a petition whining about how it's not fair, or
it's not what people really voted for, or it's all the media's and/or
government's fault.

Nice emotive words there.

How about just more of your democracy in action? There have been many
instances where the people 'rebelled' against something (Poll tax for
one) and it was changed.

We voted. The vote was to leave, unambiguously, by the rules. End of.

No, that's the point, it's not the 'end of' until article 50 is filed
and two years later no counter deal offered.

And to the whiners: Grow up, man up, and get on with securing the future.

Or ... that could be seen as 'I think we got away with it, let's close
the doors before anyone notices'?


If you got what you wanted, and are wholly positive regarding the
outcome, why do you even care?

Because I have this nasty lurking suspicion that Article 50 is not going
to get signed.

Bingo. ;-)

The PM has already reneged on a strongly implied
statement that he would do it quickly.

And I wonder why? Maybe he is sensing the mood of the people and along
with many others (including many who just stuck a cross in the Leave
box possibly), doesn't want to burn any bridges just yet?

Now, if the vote for Leave was 75 to 25%, I'd be with you 100% but it
wasn't, far from it. I'm not saying there that it should make any
specific numbers or percentage, I'm just saying 'if it was'.


Maybe you are frightened that if the government back out of the
promise to take the UK out of the EU and / or have another referendum
that 'now' the outcome might be different. 'Now' more people better
realise / understand the consequences?

No - I am afraid that a fair and straight forward vote will be cast
aside because some cry babies, immature idiots and lazy thick people
claimed they didn't understand it.

But again, that's neither the point or the whole story is it. Many
people are now just starting to fully understand the consequences of a
Leave result and are possibly regretting it. So the vote as it was
first taken potentially didn't actually reflect the opinion of the
people (once educated) and as time goes on and more FACTS come out
there is a chance that 'concern' will grow.

Now, 'of course' if you were vehemently set on having your own way
(and it seems the case you were) rather being agreeable to the real
and (now / better) educated opinion of the people, then I can see why
you are so frustrated.

And remember, I have no idea what would be best for us, short or long
term, I'm just interested that whatever we do *IS* the actual / real
fully considered choice of the majority.

Out of the frying pan ... ?

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/2016 22:23, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:36:25 +0100, Roger
wrote:


The exaggerations from both sides got a lot of exposure - and rebuttals
- during the campaign but it was always made perfectly clear that we
were only going to get one shot at this.

Yeahbut I'm not sure how much that particular penny dropped amongst
many? I don't think I heard a single person repeating the 'we'll only
get one chance' thing for instance.

Both sides were making it very clear - there was no attempt to hide it.


Despite all the froth from the SNP, it's very unlikely that they would
win - or even hold - a second independence referendum.

I thought it was already in hand Roger?

well the First Minister is talking about drawing up enabling legislation
- but that's a long way from actually *holding* a referendum. AIUI,
they'd need to co-operation of the British Government, as before. They
may or may not get that.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:



In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.


Whilst had Remain won, the architects of Project Fear would presumably
have been fit to stay in office?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/16 21:18, Roger Mills wrote:
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?

Knowing the meaning of the word only requires some elementary greek, or
a dictionary. Democracy is when the people themselves choose their own
government. There is a lot of historical and cultural stuff implied by
the word like that it might involve ballots, might involve a belief in
the equal value of the votes of all people, might involve compromise and
inclusive co-operative government. It does not mean that a simple
majority referendum trumps anything at any time. that is for us to decide.

tim W

On 25/06/2016 22:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/06/16 22:13, michael adams wrote:


I had no objection whatsoever to the propsal that Tony Blair should be
charged for war crimes. And he only destroyed another country, Iraq.

If they succeed in their stated aims then these opportunstic clowns will
have destroyed their own

Or made done something we'll look back on and be grateful for.

How's your crystal ball?


I'm confident that we *will* be grateful. When the EU - and particularly
the Eurozone - implode, as they inevitably will, it's far far better
that the UK is totally out of it.
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 22:34, Tim Watts wrote:
On 25/06/16 22:30, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:13:18 +0100, "michael adams"
wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
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.


But that's not how representative democracy works, which is the
normal form of
government in the UK.

In recognition of the fact that half of the voting population are of
below average
intelligence and are unlikely to understand complex issues, they
elect people
who they believe they can trust to decide those issues on their behalf.

Now under normal circumstances whether these representatives are
worthy of their trust will not be an issue as they're always subject
to selection
committes where questions of propriety are involved. And in any case
this
may well cancel itself out over the whole body of MPs and the large
number of issuse on which they'll decide.

In the case of the refendum there were no such representatives. While
the politicians promoting Leave all told blatant lies about the
inevitable
effect of Leave on the UK economy.

In the absence of a second refendum or similar I sincerely believe
that once the effects of this decision have played out, effects which
could have been forseen by the prominent Leave promoters had they
chosen to look, then these people should be either removed from
office, or
dragged from their bolt-holes if they've sunk off in the meantime and
tried for Treason. Just as would have happened in the good old days.

Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.


Indeed. That's what the EU is all about - keep on voting until you get
the right answer!
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On 25/06/2016 22:49, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:34:46 +0100, Tim
wrote:



Well said. A good 'real world' overview.

Cheers, T i m


No - it's the whine of a bad loser who wants us to do it again because
we got it wrong.

Can you show me where michael mentions anything like that?


How about "In the absence of a second refendum . . "?
--
Cheers,
Roger
____________
Please reply to Newsgroup. Whilst email address is valid, it is seldom
checked.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:56:00 +0100, Tim Watts
wrote:

On 25/06/16 22:46, Tim+ 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 signing it:

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



Nah. I voted remain but the you can't change the rules *after* the vote.
For better or worse, the deed is done.

Tim


It's not quite done.


Cameron has reneged on triggering Article 50 himself,

I heard a newsreader tonight using the 'If' word re us leaving.

and is probably
hoping everyone will change their mind in 3 months.

If many haven't done so already?

When/if that happens, British politics is dead in the water. Or UKIP
will win some seats at the next election, along with a general surge in
far right party members.

It could be said that might be a small price to pay compared with the
alternative?

Again, I don't know much about all this but I'm guessing much of what
goes on in the front of British politics is actually *physically* done
by civil servants and secretaries? Because of that I'd think there was
more chance of life just carrying on if we stayed but even with no
formal government than with one trying to get out of the EU? (Assuming
such things are allowed etc)? shrug

Cheers, T i m

On 25/06/16 20:39, Capitol wrote:
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.

You are plain wrong. I am thinking of the devolution referendums of the
70s and there are doubtless more examples.

Certainly it has never, ever been the case that a simple majority in a
popular referendum trumps the normal workings of legislative bodies, and
it it still doesn't today. Brexiters now need a government to do the
brexit, and they may not get one.

TW

On 25/06/16 21:22, Roger Mills wrote:
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!!

'end of' in your dreams baby. ask an Irish Nationalist or a Scottish
Nationalist if they want to be obliged by the terms or your referendum.

TW

On 25/06/2016 19:42, polygonum wrote:
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.

But that only makes sense for a decision where none of the outcomes is
the status quo, otherwise you are just building in a bias against change.