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.
So HoC divisions should require a supermajority too?
Are you speaking about the referendum to join the EEC/Common Market?
Plenty didn?t, particularly with the older ones.
Wrong again.
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.
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
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
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% ;-)
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.
Unfortunately they have ceded complete sovreignty to it.
With four opt-outs from those
No, He wasn't.
ha ha ha - concessions - ha ha ha. And so on.
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".
...further than the edge of my own cloud cuckoo land."
There ya go ;-)
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)
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.
You get asked , you have an opportunity to vote, what wins happens s*it 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...
Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.
Ask the community — no account required