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

[roger_ramjet]

Not sure what you're suggesting you've 'missed' but I thought it was 37% of the actual (potential) electorate Roger, not the 'registered' electorate but I may be wrong.

You are indeed wrong. The 37% is of the registered voters, there are about 5 million who did not register to vote, bringing it down to around 34% of those eligible.

Assumptions or no assumptions, the individuals that were enfranchised to vote, but chose not to, seem unlikely to me to have been significantly pro "stay". More likely the opposite. So I wish we could simply knock the argument of "was the vote conclusive"on the head....

[swaledale]

You do really miss the whole point of brexit, don't you. We value anybody who is prepared to come to this country and make a contribution to our society. As you rightly point out, we couldn't cope without immigrants in many jobs. However, we do want to be able to choose who to let in.

There are many Americans, Australians, etc, etc who work and live in this country. But do we let in convicted *** offenders from those countries?

So when we leave,i am waiting for you remainers to be marching outside parliament with banners promoting the rights of *** offenders from the eu!

Over the top and ridiculous, I know, but no more than what you're saying.

I'm not missing the point, indeed I've addressed this spurious claim, that freedom of movement allows terrorists and criminals freedom to roam before - we have border checks now, if there is evidence to support the fact that a particular person is an undesirable, we can refuse entry now. How will Brexit change that?

Given we have 1,000s of illegal immigrants from outside the EU, many of them engaged in criminal activity which the government has the power to act against but seems unable or unwilling to do so, how will Brexit change that?

That's not withstanding the concept that there are hundreds of criminals and terrorists able to enter the country due to our membership of the Eu has been shown to be a falsehood peddled by the media and leave campaigners!

[swaledale]

You are indeed wrong. The 37% is of the registered voters, there are about 5 million who did not register to vote, bringing it down to around 34% of those eligible.

Assumptions or no assumptions, the individuals that were enfranchised to vote, but chose not to, seem unlikely to me to have been significantly pro "stay". More likely the opposite. So I wish we could simply knock the argument of "was the vote conclusive"on the head....

You have made a pretty big assumption there Rog? Based on what I ask as the reverse seems much more likely given the fact that those who wanted out were more animated and many remainers could not conceive that there would be enough people stupid enough to vote leave!

The reason the % of those who voted leave comes up only because Brexiteers are very fond of saying the "will of the people" must be observed, sorry but 37% does not represent the "will of the people" by any stretch of the imagination, yes a majority of those who voted voted Leave and in a democracy that has to be respected, but calling it the "will of the British people" is completely false and over the top.

[ramspride]

You have made a pretty big assumption there Rog? Based on what I ask as the reverse seems much more likely given the fact that those who wanted out were more animated and many remainers could not conceive that there would be enough people stupid enough to vote leave!

The reason the % of those who voted leave comes up only because Brexiteers are very fond of saying the "will of the people" must be observed, sorry but 37% does not represent the "will of the people" by any stretch of the imagination, yes a majority of those who voted voted Leave and in a democracy that has to be respected, but calling it the "will of the British people" is completely false and over the top.

Swales I hope you are not aiming the comment 'many remainers could not conceive that there would be enough people stupid enough to vote leave' at me and other people who voted 'Leave'. I could see why many did vote remain but I didn't agree with them. I did/do think that immigration is out of hand. Why do so many people want to come here? Can the country's education system, housing, schools, NHS, roads, etc. cope? The answer is simple no, I don't consider that decision stupid. I know our parliamentary system is not flawless but do we want to allow completely non elected ed and non, in our interests people dictate the laws? Do you think it is good that we pour loads of our taxes into financing countries who's people don't believe in paying taxes. I know you will never change your mind re the EU but please respect other views and stop calling them stupid.

[ramAnag]

You are indeed wrong. The 37% is of the registered voters, there are about 5 million who did not register to vote, bringing it down to around 34% of those eligible.

Assumptions or no assumptions, the individuals that were enfranchised to vote, but chose not to, seem unlikely to me to have been significantly pro "stay". More likely the opposite. So I wish we could simply knock the argument of "was the vote conclusive"on the head....

So let me get this right. You're saying that...in reality only about 34% of the electorate actually voted 'Leave' and you believe, based on little if any evidence, that those who didn't vote would have been more inclined to vote 'Leave' and somehow this has led you to conclude that this means we should stop questioning whether the vote was 'conclusive'. Love you dearly Rog but, unless I'm missing something, that makes no sense at all.

[Trickytreesreds]

So let me get this right. You're saying that...in reality only about 34% of the electorate actually voted 'Leave' and you believe, based on little if any evidence, that those who didn't vote would have been more inclined to vote 'Leave' and somehow this has led you to conclude that this means we should stop questioning whether the vote was 'conclusive'. Love you dearly Rog but, unless I'm missing something, that makes no sense at all.

I'm confused here.
72.2% of the electorate voted.

33,568,184 out of an electorate of 46,500,001
Now juggle it how you will. There is a win/loss ratio here.
In any electorate, no 100% Is going to agree.

So where do you draw the line at? 100%., 75%, 51%
Under current rules, first past the post wins. After all the legal showboating, that rule still applies.
Whinge about the 37% all you like. Was it a majority or not?
Yes / no will do.

[ramAnag]

I'm confused here.
72.2% of the electorate voted.

33,568,184 out of an electorate of 46,500,001
Now juggle it how you will. There is a win/loss ratio here.
In any electorate, no 100% Is going to agree.

So where do you draw the line at? 100%., 75%, 51%
Under current rules, first past the post wins. After all the legal showboating, that rule still applies.
Whinge about the 37% all you like. Was it a majority or not?
Yes / no will do.

Of the electorate? No. Of those who voted? Yes.
Can 37% (or 34% according to RR) ever represent the 'will of the people' in a two option vote? Never.
A question for you...was the referendum ever more than advisory? A simple yes/no will do.

[Andy_Faber]

Of the electorate? No. Of those who voted? Yes.
Can 37% (or 34% according to RR) ever represent the 'will of the people' in a two option vote? Never.
A question for you...was the referendum ever more than advisory? A simple yes/no will do.

Just a little observation:

The world holds its breath while eleven learned judges decide if its the government or parliament who will decide on whether to act on the will of the people. The reason for that is that clarity on that is required

BUT, no-one is challenging the RESULT. And why? Because they've accepted it, according to the prevailing rules. There WAS clarity, Leave won.

So why is it taking up so much space here? We should be ****sh*tting about the future not the past

[Akwesasne]

I'm confused here.
72.2% of the electorate voted.

33,568,184 out of an electorate of 46,500,001
Now juggle it how you will. There is a win/loss ratio here.
In any electorate, no 100% Is going to agree.

So where do you draw the line at? 100%., 75%, 51%
Under current rules, first past the post wins. After all the legal showboating, that rule still applies.
Whinge about the 37% all you like. Was it a majority or not?
Yes / no will do.

NO...

[swaledale]

Swales I hope you are not aiming the comment 'many remainers could not conceive that there would be enough people stupid enough to vote leave' at me and other people who voted 'Leave'. I could see why many did vote remain but I didn't agree with them. I did/do think that immigration is out of hand. Why do so many people want to come here? Can the country's education system, housing, schools, NHS, roads, etc. cope? The answer is simple no, I don't consider that decision stupid. I know our parliamentary system is not flawless but do we want to allow completely non elected ed and non, in our interests people dictate the laws? Do you think it is good that we pour loads of our taxes into financing countries who's people don't believe in paying taxes. I know you will never change your mind re the EU but please respect other views and stop calling them stupid.

Ramspride you come across with reasonable and sensible points but they are fundamentally flawed, I have frineds and business colleagues who also voted leave and I am astounded at the reasons they give and yes I do think that decision was stupid, it was shooting oneself in the foot in a big way, even intelligent people make stupid decisions so I'm not saying your stupid, but the decision to vote leave certainly was.

On the subject of immigrants overcrowding our services etc. The answer is they more than pay for them, its up to the government to plan for that - we need these people our birth rate is low and the population is getting older, who is going to pay for the pensioners if there aren't people working? Who is going to keep our services and industries going if there isn't the labour? Who is going to do those jobs which many Uk people feel are "beneath" them without immigration? Immigration has made this country the economic success it is and unfortunately leaving the EU is not going to stop the need for that.


Exactly which laws have impacted negatively on the UK? Which laws are so outlandish that we wouldn't have adopted them anyway?

Which countries have we been pouring money into? Do you have the same view about International Aid? Does it not make moral and economic sense for richer countries to provide assistance, both financial and practical to poorer countries so that the economic imbalance which encourages both immigration and conflicts is at least evened up a bit?


Leaving the EU is not going to resolve the issues you mention, in fact its likely to make them worse, yes successive governments have mishandled many issues, yes the Eu isn't perfect, though it does have many positives, its used as a convenient scapegoat and when we leave and nothing changes for the better who will w e blame then?

[ramAnag]

Ramspride you come across with reasonable and sensible points but they are fundamentally flawed, I have frineds and business colleagues who also voted leave and I am astounded at the reasons they give and yes I do think that decision was stupid, it was shooting oneself in the foot in a big way, even intelligent people make stupid decisions so I'm not saying your stupid, but the decision to vote leave certainly was.

On the subject of immigrants overcrowding our services etc. The answer is they more than pay for them, its up to the government to plan for that - we need these people our birth rate is low and the population is getting older, who is going to pay for the pensioners if there aren't people working? Who is going to keep our services and industries going if there isn't the labour? Who is going to do those jobs which many Uk people feel are "beneath" them without immigration? Immigration has made this country the economic success it is and unfortunately leaving the EU is not going to stop the need for that.


Exactly which laws have impacted negatively on the UK? Which laws are so outlandish that we wouldn't have adopted them anyway?

Which countries have we been pouring money into? Do you have the same view about International Aid? Does it not make moral and economic sense for richer countries to provide assistance, both financial and practical to poorer countries so that the economic imbalance which encourages both immigration and conflicts is at least evened up a bit?


Leaving the EU is not going to resolve the issues you mention, in fact its likely to make them worse, yes successive governments have mishandled many issues, yes the Eu isn't perfect, though it does have many positives, its used as a convenient scapegoat and when we leave and nothing changes for the better who will w e blame then?

Agree completely. I'd love some examples of these terrible laws that have been imposed upon us...ones that aren't about that tiresome old favourite...bananas. It would also make a pleasant change if the more vociferous 'leave' supporters on here would recognise that, although we are opposed to Brexit, many 'Remainers' - including Swale and I - don't believe that the EU is a perfect, fault free organisation. Personally I agree it has many faults but I'd prefer our country to be part of a united Europe that changes things from within than an isolated nation run by seemingly increasingly eccentric and balmy politicians.

[roger_ramjet]

Shock horror - Tweedledum agrees with Tweedledee. Bill with Ben....fallubadub.

Silly laws? There are so many unpopular ones that frequent the pages of the Daily Express and Daily Mail that I have lost count, but lots of these comprise whingeing about sensible change. I rather liked the one banning vendors of water from claiming that it aids rehydration because "experts" thought that it didnt. Perhaps those experts worked for iPro? Also the law preventing you eating a horse that you owned, but you could eat someone else's horse with impugnity. Or the planned law to enforce the removal of the back legs of tortoises to prevent them roaming into other peoples gardens and destroying produce. The list goes on.

Most of the examples one hears of are in the consumer environment and actually try to standardise things for better or worse. I have no problem with a lot of them but they are introduced in a very high handed way. It soes make one wonder if such trivial actions are replicated in more serious areas of the law though. I suppose its the "unintended consequences" that piss me off though - the pointless destruction of non conformist food products when half the world is starving??? Tey telling a starving person in sub Saharan Africa rhat they cannot eat that banana as it curves too much or that horse because he owned it. And what did the animal rights people make of the tortoise law?

[AdiSalisbury]

..I'd prefer our country to be part of a united Europe that changes things from within than an isolated nation run...

What makes you think that Europe is united, or that we are isolated?

[ramAnag]

Roger...quoting the Mail and the Express immediately disqualifies you from making sensible comment, as does that first ridiculous sentence. Other than that you seem to be in agreement...do wish you'd make your mind up.

Adi...unfortunately I think Europe is becoming increasingly disunited and, as a consequence, dangerous. What I said was 'I'd prefer our country to be part of a united Europe...'. It also seems clear that if, as a small island nation on the physical - and increasingly political - edge of Europe, we continue to distance ourself from our neighbours we run the risk of becoming increasingly isolated.

[AdiSalisbury]

Globalisation has happened mate, you can talk, trade, or solicit naughties with someone on the other side of the planet with a couple of clicks of a button - how is that isolated?