On 04/11/2016 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.



The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted a sensible
discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the public they would
have engaged in a sensible debate before the referendum. Instead we got
project fear and lies from both sides.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 04/11/16 11:41, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

In my view a referendum should require a reasonably large majority,
maybe 60:40, to take effect, certainly if it affects the constitution.
I would apply that equally to the Scots referendum, and Brexit.

Otherwise they threaten to tear countries apart.



Just because you lost. And are in denial over the fact you were lied to,
and believed it.,

Since almost none of the economic disasters predicted have happened,
except in the rest of the EU, a referendum tomorrow would probably net a
far far bigger majority.

I suppose we could have one referendum a week until.we got to 60%, but
them you'ld say 75%, wouldn't you?


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 04/11/2016 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences.

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades
and that's perhaps why the vote was to leave.

It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.


What liberty are you going to lose as a result of the UK leaving the EU?
Or more importantly what liberty is 99% of the population going to lose?


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the commons voted to
stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that would result if that happens.

"The March of the Wrinklies" eh, Grandad ?

Any more of that nonsense and the rest of us might start wondering
whether this triple locked Old Age Pension, is really such a good idea after all.

Especially in a Third World country as the UK is destined to become.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

On 04/11/16 11:50, alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.



The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted a sensible
discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the public they would
have engaged in a sensible debate before the referendum. Instead we got
project fear and lies from both sides.


Actually the more time goes on, the more its obvious that the bulk of
the lies were from the remoaner camp.

WE told people they wouldn't honour a referendum, if they could get away
with it. That they would use every trick to stay in the money and in
control. We told you that there wasn't going to be any massive economic
downside.

WE told you that without the UK, the EU faced bankruptcy.


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

"alan_m" wrote in message
...

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades and that's
perhaps why the vote was to leave.

The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

Presumably people won't be happy until the UK is out of the Top Ten altogether.

Thye fact that all this dosh hasn't been distributed as fairly as it appears it has in
other
EU countries, many of which have much smaller economies, is hardly the result
of the UK being in the EU.

On 04/11/16 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

It was the worlds largest economy before we joined the EU.

Anyone can cherry pick.,


--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 12:41:16 +0100, Timothy Murphy
wrote:

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

In my view a referendum should require a reasonably large majority,
maybe 60:40,

Isn't that what Farage said he wanted, had it not gone in his favour?

to take effect, certainly if it affects the constitution.

Luckily this was (legally) just a poll.

I would apply that equally to the Scots referendum, and Brexit.

It should apply to all such polls, at least as far as getting the
general feeling of the populous.

Otherwise they threaten to tear countries apart.

It shouldn't if those taking part realise it is just a poll and there
is no legal / political obligation to carry it out, no matter what the
outcome (though if it wasn't 52:48 but 60:40 then they may be asking
for trouble by not taking notice).

Cheers, T i m

On 04/11/16 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU,

and an even smaller minority voted to stay

but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.




--
Change nospam to techie

On Fri, 4 Nov 2016 11:50:47 +0000, alan_m
wrote:

On 04/11/2016 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.


The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted a sensible
discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the public they would
have engaged in a sensible debate before the referendum. Instead we got
project fear and lies from both sides.

I thought it was generally accepted that the remain pamphlet (as the
only bit of tangible hard info we were all given) was actually
reasonably honest and possibly understated and just the leave one that
was full of BS (like the money that would go to the NHS 'instead'
etc)?

As you say, the public really needed the facts, even if many wouldn't
consider them.

Cheers, T i m

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 04/11/16 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

It was the worlds largest economy before we joined the EU.

The UK ceased being the World's largest economy at some point during World War One
when she had to start borrowing from the US.

While this is indeed "before we joined the EU", that's clearly not what you mean to
imply.

Anyone can cherry pick.,


Except some people, such as yourself, are clearly no better at cherry picking than you
seem to be at anything else.

I'd just stick to the name calling if I were you.

Play to your stengths IOW.


HTH






--
Microsoft : the best reason to go to Linux that ever existed.

On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, Michael Chare wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
. com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote? Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or
any other such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have
expected May to know - or have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to
think that she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote
in the house of commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived
if the commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the
****storm that would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences. It can not be used to deprive us all of our
liberties.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

.... on both sides.

JoeJoe wrote:
On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, Michael Chare wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
. com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote? Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or
any other such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have
expected May to know - or have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to
think that she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote
in the house of commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived
if the commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the
****storm that would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences. It can not be used to deprive us all of our
liberties.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

... on both sides.


I expect most people had made their minds up from day one, and there
were obviously many who'd waited decades to have their say. The
campaigns probably only served to feed peoples' confirmation bias. This
is proved by so many people from both sides claiming that 'your side
lied' with equal conviction.

On 04/11/2016 10:54, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know
- or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.

It does not.

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?


The actual independence act would have to be passed by parliament and
not just declared that they are going by whatever government was in
power at the time.

On 04/11/2016 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 11:41, Timothy Murphy wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

In my view a referendum should require a reasonably large majority,
maybe 60:40, to take effect, certainly if it affects the constitution.
I would apply that equally to the Scots referendum, and Brexit.

Otherwise they threaten to tear countries apart.



Just because you lost. And are in denial over the fact you were lied to,
and believed it.,

Since almost none of the economic disasters predicted have happened,
except in the rest of the EU, a referendum tomorrow would probably net a
far far bigger majority.

I suppose we could have one referendum a week until.we got to 60%, but
them you'ld say 75%, wouldn't you?



We haven't left yet and the finances are already being strained.
You may be OK as you are old and won't live long enough to suffer much
but what about the rest?

"pamela" wrote in message
...

Interesting line of reasoning but I got the impression Theresa May
was beginning to show all the zealous enthusiasm of a convert.

Just good acting. Same as her public conversations with
EU bigwigs. They're not mugs and will have read of her
"secret" briefing to Goldman Sachs same as everyone else.

The fact remains that more you look at the process in detail,
and the ramifications for the UK, the worse it becomes.
Simply in terms of unsurmountable complexity, if nothing
else.

May is no mug and so presumably she's quite happy for others
to eventually realise this for themselves. Rather than her needing to
spell it all out, and being seen to criticise the "people's
will".

Quite what any HoC debates are going to be about, is another
matter. All EU sources are adamant, that in accordance with
the Lisbon Treaty there can be no negotiations until after the
UK triggers Article 50. And then all negotiations will be between
the remaining member states. The UK will then be presented with
a proposal which she can either accept or reject. There will
be no room for negotiation of any kind.
If the UK rejects the proposal then she will be allowed to
return home, and will be called back at such time as the
EU eventually gets around to agreeing on another proposal
which can be presented to the UK. Basically from start to
finish its the EU which makes all the running

It's this prospect, presumably with all the humiliating detail
spelled out, which MP's will now be invited to vote on.
With all the nonsense about "Hard" and "Soft" Brexits shown
up for the sham that it is.

Short anyway of the UK reneging on International Treaties
and suffering the inevitable consequences.

in 1536274 20161104 073405 Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Bob Martin
wrote:

in 1536085 20161103 150505 whisky-dave wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 14:54:13 UTC, Bob Minchin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

At the time I thought most knew that it was advisory and if the guvmint wan=
ted to go against the peoples vote they could, as the vote was only advisor=
y to the guvmint of what *voters* wanted, but how would that look in a so =
called democratic country might look a bit odd to say the least.

Not the differnce between what a country wants and what the voters are allo=
wed to vote for i.e no abstentions or vetoing for the general public.

So it seems the vote was either for the guvmint or against the guvmint
which is what I think happened.

If the guvmint gave us what the public wanted there would be no taxes and
the death penalty would come back.

There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.

That's exactly my point, Tim. They would not ask a question when they know that
the answer they would get is not the one they want.

In article ,
Bod wrote:
It was our government that asked us the question. Why ask it if they
won't accept the answer. A pointless question.

Any government gets elected on the basis of its manifesto. The things they
promise to do. One of those for the past few governments was to bring
immigration 'down to a trickle' And none got remotely close - even
ignoring free movement of Europeans.

So just why a referendum result that didn't have an absolute majority of
those entitled to vote must be so special. I don't understand.

But even accepting that decision, I'm certainly not going to leave the
outcome of any negotiations in the hands of a few appointed by a PM that
wasn't herself elected as such.

--
*Learn from your parents' mistakes - use birth control.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

in 1536314 20161104 105459 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know
- or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.

It does not.

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

Filthy totalitarian.

You're good at this debating lark, aren't you?

In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:34, Tim Streater wrote:


There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.


There doesn't need to be everyone knows the results.

The big problem with the brexit vote is it has torn the UK down the
middle. Neither side has enough of a majority for the others to be happy
with the outcome.

Absolutely. Had it been an absolute majority of those entitled to vote,
most would be resigned to the decision, even if they disagreed with it.

About the worst thing that has happened so far is that the racist bigots
now think they are the majority and can do what they like.

Its going to take years to sort out and we will need more prison space
too.

What is far more worrying is that many voted out because they lived in
deprived areas and were desperate for change. And rightly so. But in
practice are likely to have made things worse for themselves.

--
*Keep honking...I'm reloading.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/11/2016 13:13, pamela wrote:
On 12:59 4 Nov 2016, JoeJoe wrote:

On 04/11/2016 12:28, pamela wrote:
On 10:39 4 Nov 2016, Michael Chare wrote:

On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
. com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote? Will it be a free
vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty' actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or
any other such ****e St Nige etc implied. But you would
have expected May to know - or have been told - long
before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to
think that she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote
in the house of commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived
if the commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the
****storm that would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the
electorate voted to leave the EU, but did not know the
consequences. It can not be used to deprive us all of our
liberties.

Brexiteers expecting all their extreme demands to be met should
have realised all they had was a wafer-thin majority in an
advisory referendum beset with dishonest claims.

... on both sides.

Some sides were more dishonest than others.

Anyone want 350 million quid a week?

Osborne and Carney were either blatantly lying or are simply not fit for
purpose. These two did/do have access to the facts before they open(ed)
their mouths.

in 1536346 20161104 121900 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

It was the worlds largest economy before we joined the EU.

Splutter!!

In article ,
Michael Chare wrote:
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be
used to deprive us all of our liberties.

But depriving the average UK citizen of at least some liberties is
*exactly* what many BREXITEERS wanted.

--
*Avoid clichés like the plague. (They're old hat.) *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/11/16 13:57, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536314 20161104 105459 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know
- or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.


There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences. It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.

It does not.

I suppose you would have said the scots could not leave the UK if their
leave referendum had been 'yes'?

Filthy totalitarian.

You're good at this debating lark, aren't you?

This isn't a debate.

This is a coup d'état.


--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

On 04/11/16 14:00, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536346 20161104 121900 The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 12:13, Moron Watch wrote:
The UK was the fourth largest economy in the World before the vote.
The fifth largest afterwards

It was the worlds largest economy before we joined the EU.

Splutter!!

It was. Including the Empire, it was the largest economy the world had
ever known in Victorias time.

Which is as pointless and meaningless as any other statement about brexit.



--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 04/11/2016 07:34, Tim Streater wrote:

There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.

There doesn't need to be everyone knows the results.

The big problem with the brexit vote is it has torn the UK down the
middle. Neither side has enough of a majority for the others to be happy
with the outcome.

Perhaps so, although I think the UK was already torn down the middle.

We agree about something at last.

Years ago I used to imagine that the EU (this EU, that is) was probably
a good thing. Once they started bullying people who voted "the wrong
way", and once I started seeing it a little bit from the inside, I
began to wonder.

The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of work.
They brought it on themselves for daring to take any action to protect
their jobs.

And repeat with many many other industries. And little attempt to
encourage alternative work and training for it.

Which BTW has f-all to do with the EU. Except as a fall guy.

--
*It IS as bad as you think, and they ARE out to get you.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
The fanatic 'it's over get on with it' leavers (who don't seem to
'get' democracy in the real world) are like people who have stumbled
over a tenner in the street and want to pick it up and walk off
quickly to minimise their risk of getting caught out.


I'm happy enough with the 'let's get on with it' approach. But I'd like to
know about the plans on just how to achieve this.

There are many many politicians and businessmen who have been just waiting
for the day we could be out of the EU. So presumably must have some ideas
of the way forward? If so, why not some concrete proposals?

--
*I wish the buck stopped here. I could use a few.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 10:39, Michael Chare wrote:

There was an advisory referendum in which a minority of the electorate
voted
to leave the EU, but did not know the consequences.

People are living with the consequences of being in the EU for decades
and that's perhaps why the vote was to leave.

It can not be used to
deprive us all of our liberties.


What liberty are you going to lose as a result of the UK leaving the EU?
Or more importantly what liberty is 99% of the population going to lose?

You've just seen what the BEXITS want. The rule of law in the UK ignored,
if it goes against them.

And have you heard any proposals of added liberties for the average UK
citizen after we leave?

--
*A bartender is just a pharmacist with a limited inventory *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Moron Watch wrote:
WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.

"The March of the Wrinklies" eh, Grandad ?

Don't even consider thinking Turnip speaks for OAPs. Anymore than anyone
else.

Any more of that nonsense and the rest of us might start wondering
whether this triple locked Old Age Pension, is really such a good idea
after all.

Actually, all my wrinkly friends are more worried about leaving the EU
effecting their private pensions than state one.

Especially in a Third World country as the UK is destined to become.

Don't say you haven't been warned.

But Turnip doesn't believe in expert opinion.

--
*I don't work here. I'm a consultant

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Had it been an absolute majority of those entitled to vote,
most would be resigned to the decision, even if they disagreed with it.

So you want apathists non-votes to count?

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2016 10:42:09 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


At least with BNP you know they are racist and aren't hiding under the
UKIP banner.

I only know of one person (to talk personally) that is a memebr of UKIP,
I don;lt know what he thinks but he is married to a black women from the
seychelles they have been marriedf about 12 years. I'm not sure I could
accuse him of being a racist because he didnt chose a white wife, maybe
you can.

I'm probably one of the few on here that have actually been to a UKIP
meeting. A large one, but not large enough to have TV cameras there. And
it seemed to me exactly like a BNP meeting.

--
*Home cooking. Where many a man thinks his wife is.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 04/11/2016 00:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

If those who actually voted to leave were unanimous in what they wanted,
it would be clearer. But you'll get as many versions from them as there
are days in the year.



The referendum was a simple leave/remain vote. If MPs wanted a sensible
discussion about what staying or leaving meant for the public they would
have engaged in a sensible debate before the referendum. Instead we got
project fear and lies from both sides.

Absolutely. And, of course, anti EU stories, many false, in the popular
press for years beforehand.

--
*And the cardiologist' s diet: - If it tastes good spit it out.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 04/11/2016 14:13, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 04/11/2016 07:34, Tim Streater wrote:

There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.

There doesn't need to be everyone knows the results.

The big problem with the brexit vote is it has torn the UK down the
middle. Neither side has enough of a majority for the others to be happy
with the outcome.

Perhaps so, although I think the UK was already torn down the middle.

We agree about something at last.

Years ago I used to imagine that the EU (this EU, that is) was probably
a good thing. Once they started bullying people who voted "the wrong
way", and once I started seeing it a little bit from the inside, I
began to wonder.

The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.


'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of work.
They brought it on themselves for daring to take any action to protect
their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

On Friday, 4 November 2016 14:18:25 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 04/11/2016 07:34, Tim Streater wrote:

There hasn't been a referendum on those two matters.

There doesn't need to be everyone knows the results.

The big problem with the brexit vote is it has torn the UK down the
middle. Neither side has enough of a majority for the others to be happy
with the outcome.

Perhaps so, although I think the UK was already torn down the middle.

We agree about something at last.

Down the middle in what direction east/west, I've always thought the divded was north/south and more recently from the thames to watford gap.
South London not really being London but a part of the south coast. ;-P

On Friday, 4 November 2016 14:37:42 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
On Friday, 4 November 2016 10:42:09 UTC, dennis@home wrote:


At least with BNP you know they are racist and aren't hiding under the
UKIP banner.

I only know of one person (to talk personally) that is a memebr of UKIP,
I don;lt know what he thinks but he is married to a black women from the
seychelles they have been marriedf about 12 years. I'm not sure I could
accuse him of being a racist because he didnt chose a white wife, maybe
you can.

I'm probably one of the few on here that have actually been to a UKIP
meeting.

well congrates on that.

A large one, but not large enough to have TV cameras there. And
it seemed to me exactly like a BNP meeting.

Have you been to a BNP meeting too ?

Not sure I'd want to go to either.

But a friends did a thesis on her boyfriend friend regarding
the socail implications of football violence some socialogy degree.
He 'supported' millwall he was basiclly a thug used to arrange fights outside the stadium special places were chosen and only those wanting to fight were invited usualy about 10-20 at a time kicked the **** out of each other then parted until the next time. Don't understand it myslef but I won;t target all millwall supports as being like that and certainly not all football supporters.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:

] In my view a referendum should require a reasonably large majority,
maybe 60:40, to take effect, certainly if it affects the constitution.
I would apply that equally to the Scots referendum, and Brexit.

Otherwise they threaten to tear countries apart.

Just because you lost. And are in denial over the fact you were lied to,
and believed it.,

It has nothing to do with my views on Brexit.
I think rule by referendum is inherently dangerous.
It is also contrary to the UK's historic tradition, which I value.
I share the views of Edmund Burke on these matters.

Incidentally, the US has a much more rigorous requirement
than the one I suggest.
Two thirds of both houses have to support an amendment
before it can be put to a vote,
and three quarters of the states then have to vote for it.

--
Timothy Murphy
gayleard /at/ eircom.net
School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin

In article ,
JoeJoe wrote:
Anyone want 350 million quid a week?

Osborne and Carney were either blatantly lying or are simply not fit for
purpose. These two did/do have access to the facts before they open(ed)
their mouths.

Meaning it's perfectly acceptable to tell lies if you don't have the facts?

Oh - none can have facts about the future. Merely predictions. But to
predict we could redirect the gross EU contribution to the NHS assumes the
country would not be worse off by leaving the EU. A very, very, silly
thing to predict.

--
*Lottery: A tax on people who are bad at math.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article om,
dennis@home wrote:
The UK is torn down the middle by successive governments allowing the rich
to get richer while the poor got poorer.

The miners union and the car workers unions didn't/don't appear to care
much about what happens to others as long as they get paid more than the
average. The car workers unions didn't even care if the company was
going bust, they still wanted more than car workers in other plants.

Thus is capitalism. Each out for themselves. If a company seeks to get the
very best deal at that point in time for that company out of the
workforce, why expect the workforce to have some sort of public duty?


'We can buy coal cheaper from abroad than we can produce it outselves'
So close our coal industry and who cares about those thrown out of
work. They brought it on themselves for daring to take any action to
protect their jobs.

The miners switched from protecting their jobs to bringing down the
elected government and that can't be allowed to happen even if it does
leave them on the dole.

Did they actually bring down the government, then? Or was it just typical
scare tactics?
Seems to be the predictions made by many unions at that time have largely
come true.

--
*They told me I had type-A blood, but it was a Type-O.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 04/11/2016 09:59, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 04/11/16 09:55, Michael Chare wrote:
On 04/11/2016 07:44, Bob Martin wrote:
in 1536098 20161103 152617 "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

It is good that the BREXITEERS have finally been told what
'sovereignty'
actually means.

Absolutely nothing to do with 'the will of the people' or any other
such
****e St Nige etc implied. But you would have expected May to know -
or
have been told - long before now.

May's attitude & behaviour are increasingly dictatorial.
Power has obviously gone to her head.


If she loses the appeal she should resign, as she appears to think that
she can deprive us of our freedoms without a vote in the house of
commons.

WE voted out. That's the end of it. Freedom would be deprived if the
commons voted to stay in, and you have no idea of the ****storm that
would result if that happens.

TNP is now resorting to threats it would appear.

Then you need new glasses, BAD.

He's JUST predicting what he thinks would happen in that situation.

Maybe he really is harry?

Unlikely given the derision he pours on harry every time
he comments on any of harry's ****, particularly with nukes.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 04/11/2016 08:06, harry wrote:
On Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:55 UTC, charles wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:
On 03/11/2016 14:22, NY wrote:
"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
I wonder what the scots will vote?
Will it be a free vote?

I imagine the Scottish MPs will vote Remain. But could they influence
the result? Depends whether other MPs vote along party lines. If so,
and
if the government's "official" line is Leave then the government has a
significant majority.

The problem starts if a high proportion of government (Conservative)
MPs
vote Remain...

What would happen if the public at large have voted (by a narrow
margin)
to Leave but a majority of MPs vote Remain? That would be an
interesting
constitutional quandary - whose view should prevail: that of the MPs
or
that of the public at large? I foresee a lot of discontent if the
public's views are superseded by the MPs' views.

More than there already is about brexit?
I doubt it somehow.

Maybe they should redraft the referendum so it is legal and do it
again?

The Referendum was supposed to be "advisory".

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

No it wasn't.
It said on the £9m leaflet that the government will implement whatever
the outcome of the referendum is.


So they got it wrong and they can legally do so.
The PM has resigned so now parliament will have to clean up the mess and
they can only do that by passing a bill to do so.
Its sovereignty as we know it and have known it for a long time.
Its what a large portion of brexiteers voted for so they should be happy.

The rest that are just trying to undermine the EU or get rid of immigrants
will have to wait and see. Not that either will happen if we leave anyway.

Leaving the EU does allow Britain to apply the same conditions on immigrants
from the EU as it currently does to non EU immigrants, remoaner.