OT: What a pillock

[jacobncfc]

Is a very strange view of our democratic process.

On that basis every general election should be illegal as very few manifesto promises are ever fully kept.

But we get the opportunity to then hold the governing party to account for breaking their promises with a general election every five years (or more..) and regular local elections.

What's the harm in holding leave to account with a second referendum if it becomes clear that the promises made in the campaign haven't materialised once we've left? Surely that is democracy in action.

[tarquinbeech]

But we get the opportunity to then hold the governing party to account for breaking their promises with a general election every five years (or more..) and regular local elections.

What's the harm in holding leave to account with a second referendum if it becomes clear that the promises made in the campaign haven't materialised once we've left? Surely that is democracy in action.

You will do....40 years from now....that's how long the rest of us had to wait to find out the Common Market meant surrendering everything up to an un-elected bunch of nutcases....welcome to Democracy at work

ps...I'll be dead, flip a coin for my vote next time

[jacobncfc]

You will do....40 years from now....that's how long the rest of us had to wait to find out the Common Market meant surrendering everything up to an un-elected bunch of nutcases....welcome to Democracy at work

ps...I'll be dead, flip a coin for my vote next time

Don't worry Tarqs, logic says you'll live to see us back in.

[tarquinbeech]

The entire point of a statistic like 2/3 is that it represents such a significant proportion of the populace that mot people would accept the will of the nation.

So if your mob get in at the next election (god forbid), it's invalid because two-thirds of the voters didn't vote for them?.....are you honestly advocating that voting is only valid if the "gap" is big enough to sustain your argument?

A "majority" simply means "who got the most votes"...it's honestly as simple as that....you cannot suddenly start saying "mmmm, oh no, your majority isn't big enough"......that's called CHAOS

[forwardmagpie]

But we get the opportunity to then hold the governing party to account for breaking their promises with a general election every five years (or more..) and regular local elections.

What's the harm in holding leave to account with a second referendum if it becomes clear that the promises made in the campaign haven't materialised once we've left? Surely that is democracy in action.

We don’t hold referendums every five years.
We had one 43 years ago, if in a generation it is felt that we haven’t achieved what we had hoped I am sure that a political party will put a new referendum in their manifesto (as Cameron did) and give the voters a chance to vote them in.

[jacobncfc]

We don’t hold referendums every five years.
We had one 43 years ago, if in a generation it is felt that we haven’t achieved what we had hoped I am sure that a political party will put a new referendum in their manifesto (as Cameron did) and give the voters a chance to vote them in.

That's completely avoiding the point, and suggests that there is no way to hold referendum campaigns to account. That's not particularly democratic, to be honest.

[magpie_mania]

So if your mob get in at the next election (god forbid), it's invalid because two-thirds of the voters didn't vote for them?.....are you honestly advocating that voting is only valid if the "gap" is big enough to sustain your argument?

A "majority" simply means "who got the most votes"...it's honestly as simple as that....you cannot suddenly start saying "mmmm, oh no, your majority isn't big enough"......that's called CHAOS

This 2/3 majority is ok if it's an issue to change something where there's no real need to.

An example would be if AH was considering Notts playing in red. Then you might say that the supporters could vote 'Would you like to see NCFC play in red?' The change would only be made if, say, 2/3 were in favour, on the basis that if 'Yes' got 60%, it wouldn't be changed but the 'losers' would't really have lost anything.

In the referendum, it had to be a straight majority because of what would have happened if Leave had got 65% - effectively they would have won comprehensively but the result would be declared as 'lost'. How would Parliament have dealt with that?

Although I wanted to remain, I really wish that as Leave won, they had got 70%

In the 'red' case above - if that was ever suggested, I would have wanted a 99% vote in favour to change - and 'remain black and white' would get more than 99% anyway!

[sidders]

This 2/3 majority is ok if it's an issue to change something where there's no real need to.

An example would be if AH was considering Notts playing in red. Then you might say that the supporters could vote 'Would you like to see NCFC play in red?' The change would only be made if, say, 2/3 were in favour, on the basis that if 'Yes' got 60%, it wouldn't be changed but the 'losers' would't really have lost anything.

In the referendum, it had to be a straight majority because of what would have happened if Leave had got 65% - effectively they would have won comprehensively but the result would be declared as 'lost'. How would Parliament have dealt with that?

Although I wanted to remain, I really wish that as Leave won, they had got 70%

In the 'red' case above - if that was ever suggested, I would have wanted a 99% vote in favour to change - and 'remain black and white' would get more than 99% anyway!

Jesus Christ, man, what is your problem? 67.2% voted in favour of membership in 1975. That was 67.2% of registered votes. So if you want a constitutional change and only get 65% it's a no.
As for Beechy. Stop playing silly buggers. We're talking constitutional change NOT elections.

[magpie_mania]

Jesus Christ, man, what is your problem? 67.2% voted in favour of membership in 1975. That was 67.2% of registered votes. So if you want a constitutional change and only get 65% it's a no.
As for Beechy. Stop playing silly buggers. We're talking constitutional change NOT elections.

So how would that have been dealt with in Parliament.

We keep hearing 'Doing the will of the people' - how could getting 65% in these circumstances but 'losing' be workable?

[the_anticlough]

Which leave organisation randomly excluded people most affected by the issue from having a vote ?????

Cameron and the tories fixed that one, breaking their 2015 manifesto pledge to allow all expats to vote.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ctions-whopper

There are police investigations and multiple lawsuits ongoing now into the main crimes committed by the leave campaign.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8492641.html
The illegal vote should be made void. The cover up or compromise will be a re-run vote as the whole thing unravels in the coming months. No deal made by May, no Canada-type trade deal, constitutional crisis, **** hits fans. Maybe Article 50 will be suspended first.

The whole thing is a monumental ****storm. Brexit would have been possible if it had been voted on fairly, planned and managed properly by the govt and negotiated well. It's been none of those things, even most leavers can see that.