OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[MadAmster]

I do wish people would stop using the 37% "stat" as an argument. It is, IMO, disingenuous and merely playing with numbers.

It might mean that 63% of those entitled to vote didn't vote to leave. However, those with a different viewpoint could use exactly the same logic to claim, equally as (in)validly, that 65.27% didn't vote remain.

I have 3 questions aimed at both sides of the discussion :

1. Prior to the referendum were you aware that, according to the Bill/Act making it possible, it was an advisory referendum? Yes/No

2. Prior to the referendum were you aware that Cameron had said, on many occasions, that he would abide by the result? Yes/No

3. Prior to the referendum were you aware that the "winner" would be the camp with 50% + 1 or more of the votes cast? Yes/No

I fully expect the answer to all 3 to be a resounding Yes.

A resounding Yes vote will not indicate that Brexit was the best way forward for the UK. Neither will it indicate the opposite. It should, however, stop all the harping about the validity or otherwise of the vote dependent on how you calculate the result.

[ramAnag]

I do wish people would stop using the 37% "stat" as an argument. It is, IMO, disingenuous and merely playing with numbers.

It might mean that 63% of those entitled to vote didn't vote to leave. However, those with a different viewpoint could use exactly the same logic to claim, equally as (in)validly, that 65.27% didn't vote remain.

I have 3 questions aimed at both sides of the discussion :

1. Prior to the referendum were you aware that, according to the Bill/Act making it possible, it was an advisory referendum? Yes/No

2. Prior to the referendum were you aware that Cameron had said, on many occasions, that he would abide by the result? Yes/No

3. Prior to the referendum were you aware that the "winner" would be the camp with 50% + 1 or more of the votes cast? Yes/No

I fully expect the answer to all 3 to be a resounding Yes.

A resounding Yes vote will not indicate that Brexit was the best way forward for the UK. Neither will it indicate the opposite. It should, however, stop all the harping about the validity or otherwise of the vote dependent on how you calculate the result.

1. Yes...because all referenda in the UK are.
2. Yes...but he was in no position to do so because of the above and in any case he didn’t...he ‘walked’ immediately.
3. Yes...but that does not equate to a democratic decision in a two horse race and I was never aware that ‘winning’, in the terms you suggest, meant anything more than ’here are the feelings of a percentage of the British people’.

The 37% factor is crucial imo, as are the facts that people were lied to and electoral law was broken.
I value you highly as a poster and a person MA, but to follow the decision of a vote that was taken in such circumstances over something so important is both ludicrous and suicidal imo. I second every word of Swales’ post #3550.

[Geoff Parkstone]

rat a tat tat, rat a tat tat again

1. yes
2. yes, Cameron's subsequent decision to resign (although cowardly) has no relevance to the PM pledging to follow the decision of the referendum
3. yes, the question does not allow a "but...."

The 37% factor is just an excuse for mewling in my view. Whilst 37 is not more than 50, it is more than 34 or however many voted to stay. End of. lying to the electorate? I am sure both did, although one eyed views will miss seeing their own side's lies. mame a single election in this country ever where the electorate were not lied to,

PS MA inst going to be following the decision as he is a Cloggie and, as such, best qualified to be impartial on this topic

But the most important question is, will Josefzoon be able to play for us post brexit day, since he will not have the relevant international history for a work permit as would be applied to Asian, African etc imported players

[ramAnag]

rat a tat tat, rat a tat tat again

1. yes
2. yes, Cameron's subsequent decision to resign (although cowardly) has no relevance to the PM pledging to follow the decision of the referendum
3. yes, the question does not allow a "but...."

The 37% factor is just an excuse for mewling in my view. Whilst 37 is not more than 50, it is more than 34 or however many voted to stay. End of. lying to the electorate? I am sure both did, although one eyed views will miss seeing their own side's lies. mame a single election in this country ever where the electorate were not lied to,

PS MA inst going to be following the decision as he is a Cloggie and, as such, best qualified to be impartial on this topic

But the most important question is, will Josefzoon be able to play for us post brexit day, since he will not have the relevant international history for a work permit as would be applied to Asian, African etc imported players

I almost predicted that Parky would call me out for ‘repetition’...just because he repeatedly does.
You’re missing the point though...until the question is answered satisfactorily it remains valid.
Same with everything...the arguments in favour of ending Apartheid and womens’ rights to vote never changed...neither did they become any less valid when those resistant to them repeatedly said...’yeah, yeah...we’ve heard it all before’.
So...someone explain a) how 37% in favour of something represents a democratic majority in a two horse race and b) twenty six months on and knowing what why now know...why Brexit is such a good idea, because until those two questions can be answered satisfactorily I’ll stick to my position thanks.

[Andy_Faber]

I do wish people would stop using the 37% "stat" as an argument. It is, IMO, disingenuous and merely playing with numbers.

It might mean that 63% of those entitled to vote didn't vote to leave. However, those with a different viewpoint could use exactly the same logic to claim, equally as (in)validly, that 65.27% didn't vote remain.

I have 3 questions aimed at both sides of the discussion :

1. Prior to the referendum were you aware that, according to the Bill/Act making it possible, it was an advisory referendum? Yes/No

2. Prior to the referendum were you aware that Cameron had said, on many occasions, that he would abide by the result? Yes/No

3. Prior to the referendum were you aware that the "winner" would be the camp with 50% + 1 or more of the votes cast? Yes/No

I fully expect the answer to all 3 to be a resounding Yes.

A resounding Yes vote will not indicate that Brexit was the best way forward for the UK. Neither will it indicate the opposite. It should, however, stop all the harping about the validity or otherwise of the vote dependent on how you calculate the result.

But regrettably it won't.

Edit: See, told ya!

[Andy_Faber]

But regrettably it won't.

Edit: See, told ya!

Second edit: I'm considering deleting all future posts which refer to the 37%, I think we've all had our say and no-one has moved their stance an inch/centimetre

[Andy_Faber]

I have yet to talk to anyone, who voted leave at whatever level in society who can actually articulate why its a good thing.

You need to get out of you bubble then. I spent a day in Corby today and there was a lot of eloquence on both side, mainly pro Brexit. Contrast that with a day in Leyton last week where, once again, there was good reasoning on both sides, this time mainly anti-Brexit. The main theme amongst the Corbyites was that they will trade off a reduction in affluence for tighter control on immigration and they consider that to be a good thing. You may consider that perverse, but their opinion is as valid as yours and their vote as valuable

[MadAmster]

But regrettably it won't.

Edit: See, told ya!

Posted these 3 questions on FB as well. Nobody has answered them..........

[Ram59]

1. Yes...because all referenda in the UK are.
2. Yes...but he was in no position to do so because of the above and in any case he didn’t...he ‘walked’ immediately.
3. Yes...but that does not equate to a democratic decision in a two horse race and I was never aware that ‘winning’, in the terms you suggest, meant anything more than ’here are the feelings of a percentage of the British people’.

The 37% factor is crucial imo, as are the facts that people were lied to and electoral law was broken.
I value you highly as a poster and a person MA, but to follow the decision of a vote that was taken in such circumstances over something so important is both ludicrous and suicidal imo. I second every word of Swales’ post #3550.

Regarding your claim that the electoral law was broken, this was claimed by the electoral commission which the High Court has now overturned stating that the electoral commission itself gave incorrect advice to the leave campaign which resulted in the problem. The electorate were subjected to project fear and threats were made, which didn't happen. These were far more serious lies than some vague writing on the side of a bus, which was discredited BEFORE the referendum.

You state that the public were ill equipped to make a decision at the referendum and that it should have been left to the politicians and that it was just advisory. Well, the politicians made the decision in the end, which was what you were calling for. Had it been such a bad result in the referendum, then surely your informed people would have overturned the decision.


Get over it.

[ramAnag]

Second edit: I'm considering deleting all future posts which refer to the 37%, I think we've all had our say and no-one has moved their stance an inch/centimetre

All the time in the world for you Andy but that stance would be ridiculous.
You may not like it but it’s a factor that can’t be ignored.
The thread has approaching 4,000 posts...the tone has been largely civil...act in the way you’re describing and you won’t be moderating you’ll be censoring.

Ram59...to the best of my knowledge the Leave campaign has been fined on four separate counts of breaking the rules and has been referred to the police. If I’m wrong I’ll withdraw that suggestion but, although, again you may not like it, that is what I understand.