OT: How to game a petition part II

Yes, but he really doesn?t care and wants what he believes will provide the better economic result.

It doesn?t really, most obviously with spanish.

But only the most stupid like the irish and greeks and the old yugoslavia do that sort of stupid stuff anymore.

I do, the world moves on, even with the EU.

Reply to
Jac Brown
Loading thread data ...

So HoC divisions should require a supermajority too?

Reply to
Andy Burns

Are you speaking about the referendum to join the EEC/Common Market?

Reply to
Spike

Plenty didn?t, particularly with the older ones.

Wrong again.

Reply to
Jac Brown

That wasn't the case in the 1850s, when everyone who moved into the US learnt English as fast as possible. It's also when the civil war occurred.

Reply to
Tim Streater

Not specifically, but the logic still applies.

Big decisions that are very likely (or in most such cases, *essential* to the point of doing it) should have a supermajority vote before they go ahead.

Even if the outcome can't be completely clear, at least 'everyone' would know that 'most people' voted for it.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Potentially, any decision can / should, yes, *especially* if the consequences could cost lives.

Democracy is of and for 'the people', not 'a minority group of the people' (or if important, certainly not just 50%+1 etc).

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

That always depends on who;s counting which votes. I heard today that there was an election in newport where the only party supporing a second referedum or reamin was the lib dems and they got 4.6% Does that tell us anything. ? But there was only a 37% turnout the lowest ever there.

Not sure wht figure you'd class as a supermajority.

I'm guessing a 110% ;-)

Reply to
whisky-dave

you got that as wrong as you usually do.

it was 50%+1.9 compareed with 48%+0.2 perhaps yuo should invest in an abacus.

Reply to
whisky-dave

Unfortunately they have ceded complete sovreignty to it.

With four opt-outs from those

No, He wasn't.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

ha ha ha - concessions - ha ha ha. And so on.

Reply to
Tim Streater

You seem to be saying that it's OK to 'gamble' with some people's lives but not a lot of people's lives[1]. Where do you draw the line of acceptability of the resultant suffering, and why are you willing to let the minority suffer?

[1] ...where you said "...at lest they weren't gambling as much with other people lives".
Reply to
Spike

...further than the edge of my own cloud cuckoo land."

There ya go ;-)

Reply to
Jim K..

Its not even you is it S p a c e d m a n?! You didn't vote. You sat on the fence & now wring your hands & bleat incessantly about "unless everything is known, no one can say".

FFS

(Snip same old deluded "crystal ball required" bleatings)

Reply to
Jim K..

W o w!

B I G W o w! Is that you standing up & being counted!?!

FFS

Nothing worth looking at? As usual.

You nervous T i m i d types need a lot more help than I.

Now go wring your hands a bit more, think happy thoughts, leave the hard decisions to the grown ups.

Reply to
Jim K..

You get asked , you have an opportunity to vote, what wins happens shit or no. It's called "the real world" - a concept you appear to have problems dealing with.

It's not dungeons & dragons or whatever you're used to playing, there are no known outcomes, expectations, "rules", gameplays to assume will follow.

Oh good grief... the non voter pipes up again...

Naive? Or thick? Who has this "holy grail" of "plainly clear" info we "now know" that you constantly bleat about? Who has the crystal ball to predict these futures to inform your choice D i m ? You?

"But don't put your money on that one I "know" it won't win or place...

Reply to
Jim K..

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.