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

[roger_ramjet]

Points noted Mangy but all your complaining isnt going to change anything, hence my suggestions that the conversation moves on rather than keep going back to the "its not fair" and "you lot cheated" type arguments. As you know I voted remain on balance but you are acting a bit like Cnut (no Ratty, don't ban me its a real word. not an attempt to avoid swear filter) in thinking you can turn back the tide of sentiment against the EU.

Surely the fact that the majority of the major political parties' MPs supported remain (albeit some with their fingers crossed behind their backs) is enough reason for supporting leave!

[Andy_Faber]

Not sure about the colouring RR...simple numbers would have sufficed.

I recognise that you know more about economics than me...that's not terribly hard, but I have to take issue with two or three points.

1. 'Yes it was badly designed and should have been more precise in its definition'.
2. Think you'll find it was always absolutely clear that it isn't 'binding' and is only - technically - 'advisory'.
3. 'Was the referendum hijacked? Yes I think it probably was, and no doubt all the issues were neither clearly explained nor understood'.

Given these two concessions of yours (1&3) and the fact about #2, why should I, and others, accept things and 'move on'?
Maybe I'm being stubborn but I don't think acceptance of an error and blind adherence to the consequence of that error is ever a good idea.

You say yourself, '...that's life...decisions are often made for the wrong reasons, and the basis for those decisions corrupted by spin doctors and mouths in suits. Get over it!'

But isn't that the whole point? When bad decisions are made they have to be challenged.
The acceptance of bad decisions is what killed a man in Huddersfield yesterday, it's what leads to children being placed in the care of sometimes dangerous people, it's why inflexible football managers end up being sacked just before their team is relegated and why soldiers are slaughtered in misguided military campaigns.
We have to challenge bad and ill thought out decision making before the damage is compounded and to tell me simply to 'get over' what you yourself describe as a decision made for the wrong reasons on the basis of 'corruption by spin doctors and mouths in suits' (aka establishment liars) is something I, respectfully, find hard to accept.

IMO The only thing anyone who's contributed to this topic should 'move on' from is the issue of whether a vote of 52% of thise who voted and 37% of those who could vote provides a mandate. It does, based on previous UK experience, and more powerfully in places where referenda are more widely used - I've mentioned before that Switzerland have many referenda each year and they are dead clear that a majority vote of those who voted is always good enough, even if the 'turnout' is low and the majority is .00001%

Other than that I think all issues are worth debating, especially as we appear to be good natured about it.

[Gaspode]

IMO The only thing anyone who's contributed to this topic should 'move on' from is the issue of whether a vote of 52% of thise who voted and 37% of those who could vote provides a mandate. It does, based on previous UK experience, and more powerfully in places where referenda are more widely used - I've mentioned before that Switzerland have many referenda each year and they are dead clear that a majority vote of those who voted is always good enough, even if the 'turnout' is low and the majority is .00001%

Other than that I think all issues are worth debating, especially as we appear to be good natured about it.

It's pretty black and white to me - if people were aware of the referendum (and they'd have needed to be living under a rock for the past 2 years to avoid it) and yet they either chose not to register or were too lazy to vote (and as postal voting was an option, then anyone who didn't go to a polling station on the day has no excuse), then there is no argument as far as the result being legitimate - maybe only 37% voted to leave, but a smaller percentage than that voted to stay - the rest just couldn't be bothered one way or the other.....

[Ram59]

Virtually all of those that didn't vote couldn't be bothered or had no strong opinion either way. On this basis, they should be classed as abstaining, by their actions, which would validate the result more.

It's wrong to think that those who didn't vote, were against leaving.

[ramAnag]

Don't mind being called 'Cnut' RR but I'm not sure about 'Mangy'.

Don't think I've ever said it's 'not fair' or talked about 'cheating' although there was an enormous amount of irresponsible lying going on. Having said that I do regard it as undemocratic, simply because, in a situation where the concept of a 'protest' vote was the biggest motivation for many, 'Leave' could still only muster the support of 37% of the electorate even for such a dramatic change and 37% is nothing like a majority when there is a choice of two.

As regards the majority of MP's voting 'remain', I'd normally be with you on that one but it seems bizarre to me than when a large part of the Brexiteers argument was about the 'sovereignty' of Parliament, that same concept was completely bypassed on this occasion.

Andy's point about Switzerland does not really stand scrutiny, a) we're not Switzerland b) to be ruled by a hypothetical majority of 0000.1% would be totally ridiculous and kind of makes the point about the unreliability of referenda as a means of decision making.

Finally, to Gaspode, I do take your point but I'm not sure you can assume that all those who didn't vote 'couldn't be bothered'. A lot maybe didn't believe they knew or understood enough and acted, imo, quite honourably by not voting.

Fair enough if you think I'm being stubborn but it is an important debate and we are up to nearly 800.

[Gaspode]

Finally, to Gaspode, I do take your point but I'm not sure you can assume that all those who didn't vote 'couldn't be bothered'. A lot maybe didn't believe they knew or understood enough and acted, imo, quite honourably by not voting. .

I don't want to get into a long-winded argument over this, but it's not in any way honourable to choose not to vote because they didn't know enough - in fact it's downright irresponsible when the outcome of the referendum was going to have such a huge impact on the country's future - how many of those people who 'didn't know enough' bothered to watch the TV programmes; watch the debates; look into things for themselves and try to find out information?
Sure there was a lot of bull out there (put out by both sides - even though the remainers still like to think that their side was the only one being 'honest' - really? look at the crap that Cameron & Osborne came out with - if the campaigning had gone on much longer, Osborne would have threatened us with a plague of frogs if we voted leave), but if you're going to be trusted with a vote, you have a responsibility to work out what you're voting for and make sure that you are as well informed as possible - that's democracy - something a huge number of people around the world would love to have the chance of participating in.....

[Andy_Faber]

to be ruled by a hypothetical majority of 0000.1% would be totally ridiculous and kind of makes the point about the unreliability of referenda as a means of decision making.

You might not have meant 'ruled' but we have actually been ruled through a massively MINORITY vote since Pongo was a pup. The Conservatory party only gained 25% of the available vote in 2015, and its not been over 35% since 1966. Anyway, I'm perpetuating the argument I earlier said we should move on from. I voted remain but respect the outcome and am now committed to a new relationship with EU and the world.

[mistaram]

Swales apologies for the delay someone has to support our team and also work for a living I'm to knackered to argue with you but there is only one thing worse than a banker and that's an arrogant banker I'm sure you know what I mean

[ramAnag]

Tbf, Gaspode, I recognise there were lies on both sides and have never defended the 'undynamic duo' of Cameron and Osborn. Little doubt what the most infamous and effective lie was though and shameful that the man who perpetuated it is now Foreign Secretary imo.

We are 'ruled' by decision makers Andy, so to that extent I did mean 'ruled'. I know we're constantly ruled by 'minority' governments but to have 37% support in a four, five or more horse race (General Election) is a whole lot different from the same meagre percentage in a two horse one. I've no idea who Pongo was/is but I understand and even admire you're stance about working with the outcome. I recognise that having retired I have the luxury of being able to pontificate while you probably have to make the situation work.

Mista...leave Swale alone and tell us about last night.

[roger_ramjet]

Pongo was a dalmatian as were 100 more.

Plus

Whoever told you that a UK General Election was a 4 or 5 horse race? In 70% of constituencies its a 1 horse race. My vote is utterly irrelevant as I reside in one of the safest Tory seats. Same is true for the vast majority of electorate. Only the small minority of people who live in marginals have any say in who governs us.