OT: Another challenge

[The Natural Philosopher]

Lets slightly rephras that. People who didn't respond weren't counted.

Better?

[T i m]

Possibly not. Another reason why our democracy is broken where people can vote selfishly and cut their noses off to spite their face.

Quite, just under half of those who voted at that particular poll.

But you say that like you think that doing so is (therefore) a reasonable thing to do? Even Farage knew it wasn't on that tiny margin as he was demanding at least 2/3rd majority before he'd accept it (till it went his way of course).

Or the system is broken so some people, potentially people not willing to be forced at answer an unanswerable question , weren't counted directly. A lack of votes ... or the quantity of (purposely) spoiled papers *should* be considered and would in most systems *really* looking to consider the will of any group of people.

Rules are made to be broken, especially when they don't really appear to work. The mere fact you are trying to defend such an inconsiderate and poorly considered outcome as being truly reflective of the will of 'the people' shows how desperate your 'cause' is at any cost.

As answered elsewhere (FIT etc) plus cash for votes and the DUP.

There have been instances of what were considered basically good ideas (poll tax?) that were reversed because 'the people' protested sufficiently (mums going to prison for non payment etc). Similar could happen with Brexit when 'the people' actually find out how it's going to impact them and the promises are only magic beans.

*IF* the result of the bogus (then and now) Brexit poll went 2/3rds one way or the other, I think more of 'the people' would accept it better represented 'the people', certainly better than a near 50:50 result.

Cheers, T i m

[T i m]

Aww, bless. ;-)

And no, he isn't because he isn't as arrogant and fanatical about politics as you.

Where we are now, all in a ship where there is no one at the wheel that knows where we are going but has tied it off anyway in spite of all the rocks around us.

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

And you claimed not to be a remainer.

[T i m]

No claim, fact (something you and your fellow fanatics seem pretty short on (not that you would recognise one if handed to you on a plate, apparently )), in exactly the same way I'm not a leaver either.

Are you really so slow that you still don't get how someone wanting to make the right choice for the majority of the population, couldn't do it when we were *polled* re Leave or Remain and (FWIW), couldn't do any different now / yet (if an ordinary person ever could etc)?

You on the other hand either know all the answers (unlikely given few people, even those in power don't), or you have some *personal opinion / crusade / fantasy*, possibly based on some bogus cause you were fed, believed and now are blindly latched onto?

How you think it's ok to carry on with the same bs when most of what you voted for has already changed, is highly unlikely to happen or if it does, be a highly diluted version I don't know (and unlike you and many of your kind, I (and many other Remainers) admit that (that being the point).

Remember, the Remainers didn't want to change the status quo so it's up to those who did to persuade the others why doing so is such a dead-cert good idea. If you can't, it might be a good idea for you to run and hide somewhere safe (not from me, I didn't vote either way remember), just in case it doesn't go as you 'hope'.

Now, see if you can work out in what I've just where I have stated that voting either Leave or Remain to be the right thing?

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

Different thread - same shit.

[T i m]

Yup, only because you can bring *nothing* to it.

Thanks for playing though ... you (and your kind) help to demonstrate to others how little the fanatical Brexiteers actually know. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

[Handsome Jack]

T i m posted

People voting selfishly (if they so choose) is the whole point of democracy.

Who do you think has cut off their nose to spite their face? People who voted for Brexit did so because they think it will be *good* for them or their families. As you tacitly admit above when you talk about 'selfishly'.

Yes, just *under* half.

Of course. You have a referendum to choose between two options, the result comes in, you do what it says. That was what the PM said would happen when they announced the referendum. What else could you do anyway?

Actually I think you've just made that up, but anyway I don't GAF what Farage said.

What was unanswerable about the question? It could not have been any plainer. I didn't hear any Remainers complaining about the question beforehand.

It never is or could be in any election or referendum of any kind held anywhere, for obvious reasons.

I see. But only when they don't deliver the result you wanted?

Would you have said "Rules were made to be broken" after a Remain win in the referendum? No.

Of course they worked. In what way did they not work? They didn't give the result you wanted?

Balls.

That's not bribing or subsidising the Brexit result. It's to do with keeping the government in power.

Anything *could* happen.

So you'd be happy with a second referendum that would only stop Brexit if Remain got a two-thirds majority?

[Huge]

You say "too close to call" and ignore the *advisory*, *non-binding* referendum that was only called for internal Conservative party politics anyway.

[Bob Eager]

Of course you don't; you ignore any uncomfortable truths if they don't fit the world view in which you have invested.

But anyway:

That's not how it works. A substantial majority is usually required for a far reaching *change*.

[T i m]

I'm pretty sure it isn't. It's potentially suicidal so far from 'the whole point'.

Exactly ... anyone who decides to change the lives of over 50% of the population that they *think* might be good for them (or everyone even).

Nope, see above.

The union reps persuade the workers to strike for better pay and conditions and they get them. Then they *all* then get made redundant because the facility is no longer profitable.

That is an example of an active minority blindly leading the majority to ruin in the hope / goal of giving them something better.

But that sort of result (to anyone other than a left brainer or someone thinking they have got away with a scam) simply wouldn't be considered representative of 'the people' as a whole.

?

Ah, you are a 'left brainer' then I'm guessing? That's not bad or wrong ... just that doesn't make you the best sort of person to gauge or make decisions on behalf of 'the people', only 52% of the people (in this / your case).

The same MP that herself voted to remain and who currently doesn't have any power because of how 'the people' voted you mean?

Find out what leaving the EU actually meant, clearly set that out and then ask the people what they want.

Ah,, then both of those statements only further indicate to me why you really should be given any say on this. ;-)

Everything?

Again, a massive left brainer whoosh there. ;-(

It wasn't the difficulty of ticking Leave or Remain boxes, it was the implication of the consequences behind then, something *no one* knew then and the same number know now.

I'm not sure *you* would have heard anything you didn't like or understand. ;-(

Unfortunately it is and is already:

What worries me is that you are allowed to vote but don't seem to consider things like this in your understanding of democracy. ;-(

Nope. I / we would be more ready to accept the result of any poll where it was 2/3 (or above) as it was more likely to represent the will of 'the people'.

For someone who doesn't seem to 'get' many things you seem to have a pretty good idea of how I work (not). The rules would be the rules,

*irrespective* of the outcome and would be accepted by more people if they were seen to better represent the will of 'the people'.

I didn't have a dog in that fight (still don't) so your comment / assumption is still way off line. See above for the actual answer though.

Yes, it takes some to not be forced into choosing between what we know and what we don't.

There were two things going on there, keep up FFS. ;-)

Of course, but if you carry on on the same road you have driven for 40 years you might have a better idea of the chances of driving into the sea versus taking an unknown path in total darkeners (especially if you have no control if the ferry will be there or not).

I would be 'happy' with any poll that better represented the will of 'the people' as long as it represented a sufficiently large proportion of (ideally) 'the people' or at worse, of those who voted.

See, I don't have a dog in this fight so I really don't care about the actual decision, just that it was considered on fact and decided by a reasonable percentage of the population.

Cheers, T i m

[Dave Plowman (News)]

I take it you've never been in a union? The idea of 'reps' persuading the members to do anything they don't want to is pure Daily Mail.

Oh - as is any employer paying higher wages than he can afford to.

[T i m]

I think I was when I worked for The Post Office?

Ok. I've never read that (or any other rag) either so ... ;-)

I'm sure that's happened though and partly why some companies have gone to the wall.

Quite. We live on a pathway that lead to a labour intensive factory of some sort and regularly saw the workers going to and from work.

Then they introduced the minimum wage and we saw far far fewer people.

Whilst I'm sure those who kept their jobs were happy ...

Cheers, T i m

[bert]

You just repeat the same shit over and over and over again.

[bert]

So why did the opposition parties support it?

[bert]

In article , T i m writes

Rubbish You have clearly demonstrated you are a determined remoaner.

[Steve Walker]

In my case, I knew it was likely to be detrimental to myself financially in the short to medium term, but considered that that was worth it to escape the tightly bound influences of the EU - how tight has been shown by the complications of leaving and if anything I feel that that in itself is good reason and that the longer it was left, the worse it would have become.

In the long term I hope that even financially it will be good for me, our children and the country, but even even if it is not, a certain amount of sacrifice is acceptable.

SteveW

[Huge]

[25 lines snipped]

You will, of course, be compensating me for the "sacrifice" you are imposing on me?

[Steve Walker]

No. I am willing to accept a sacrifice for what I consider the commmon good - long term.

You're happy enough to sacrifice our sovereignty and freedom to get rid of politicians who make laws against our (the majority's) wishes. I am not sure that that can even be compensated for.

SteveW

[Tim Streater]

Who says "Too close to call"?

And you want to do that after politicians from all sides had been busy saying "One vote difference would be enough to seal the result"?

Mind you I know and you know that they only said that because they expected Remain to win. Now they're having to eat their several hats.