OT: Last Night of the Proms

[Fruity Nutcake]

So what? The Remainder lost to an 8% majority, it's a fait accompli. They should just get over it instead of impotently blowing razzberies out of pique.

[williamwright]

I did think it odd that all the EU flags were identical.

Bill

[Dave W]

Better education? In what lesson would the pupils be steered to your way of thinking when they voted long after leaving school?

[Fruity Nutcake]

It is a common metropolitan liberal delusion, with their superior education and musical taste, that they are better grounded in the real world than the ignorant, unwashed artisan class.

Is it just snobbery?

[Spike]

I don't recall it being a requirement of the Referendum that in the post-vote period the winners were required to convince the losers of anything.

[NY]

Are the Remain side still wibbling on about how the result was decided by less than 50% *of the elegible electorate*, as if all those who chose not to vote either way would have voted for Remain. In any election, you can only count the votes of the people who vote and cannot second-guess which way the abstainers would have voted.

I'm not sure what would have happened if far fewer people had voted: would a result of 52%:48% have been valid if (for example) only 10% of the electorate had voted? Would it have been declared an unsafe decision with both sides exhorting their supporters to go out and vote in a second referendum. But when 72% of the electorate votes, I think it is safe to take the result as valid.

They also said that the "goalpost" should have been something like 66% to produce a valid "Brexit" result - ie Remain only need to poll >33% to "win" but Brexit need to poll >66% to "win". How biassed is that? In my opinion, any vote for status quo versus change should require 50% on either side, and should not be biassed in favour of status quo.

[Bernie]

Doesn't seemed to have stopped you from giving it a good go, though, Burt.

[nightjar]

....

I suppose that, if Brexiteers were any good at maths, they would have understood the economic arguments against it and voted the other way.

51.9% - 48.1% is a difference of 3.8%, not 8%.

In any case, the result is not set in stone. It is open to any future government to take us back in, if they think that will win them votes. It is up to those who think that Brexit will be a disaster to keep them aware that there is still a lot of pro-EU feeling in the country.

[Fruity Nutcake]

It's instructive to compare the Referendum vote to an ordinary parliamentary bye-election. If a majority of just one vote is good enough to elect a MP, why should an 8% majority to leave not be sufficient?

In the event of a parliamentary election being so close-run, would that invalidate the result, and if so, why?

[nightjar]

The demographics of the referendum voters showed that people with a degree or other higher education qualification were more likely to vote remain, while those with O level or lower qualifications were more likely to vote leave. Those with A levels as their highest qualification were about equally divided.

[Fruity Nutcake]

Is it not the case that Leave gained 8% more votes than Remain? That is my understanding of how majorities are calculated.

The Remainder lost; they should just get over it. What are we playing here; 'best of three'? 'best of five'? I think not; that sort of silly game is for bad losers.

[The Natural Philosopher]

They cant accept that they were wrong, and the EU still hopes to drive the UK back into its arms sobbing for forgiveness.

We wont know that Brexit has been a success and in what terms, for decades. It took what - 50 years? - to realise the EU was, on balance, a big mistake.

What we do know is that the none of the dire warnings have come to pass.

[The Natural Philosopher]

No, they just feel that they ought to be running things because plebs are f****ng dipshits

See the quote below

[The Natural Philosopher]

Because in an ordinary election you elect the Party. No matter which puppet you voted for, Brussels always stayed in.

The referendum voted to leave the Party.

Naturally the Party is upset.

[JNugent]

But as has been pointed out numerous times, the Leave vote was 108% of the Remain vote (that is, it was eight per cent bigger than the Remain vote). Other ways of expressing that fact are available, but that one is

100% true and accurate.

I think we can all guarantee that if the UK ever rejoins the Common Market / EEC / EU, it will not happen because the government (ie, Parliament) just decides it, like in 1972.

There would have to be a fresh Peoples' Vote and this time, perhaps we could graciously accept one of the Remainers' main points and require a

66:33 majority for any change from the status quo. We know they were all in favour of that after the result last time.

[The Natural Philosopher]

There will not be an EU to rejoin. It is sufferiung from its own democratic deficit. There is a lot wrong with it and no country in the 27 wants it to remain as it is, but since there is no democracy, it sees no reason to change

So nations will simply increase their policy of ignoring it.

LOL!

>

[Fruity Nutcake]

The EU is riven from top to bottom, side to side. Who in their right mind would choose to remain shackled to a wounded elephant? IMO it's only a matter of time until it falls apart. Even the Germans have their doubts about it now.

[Tim Streater]

Ther Yanks have a similar problem, with a constitution that might have been a good one in 1776 but is no longer fit for purpose, and no sensble way to change it.

[charles]

A Parliamentary election result is only for 5 years - at a maximum. Theoretically Brexit was to be for ever.

It is very interesting to note that the "Regain our soverignity" movement seems to reject Scotland wanting to exercise the right to leave tbe United Kingdom.

[Tim Streater]

So was Brentry, carried out without even a referendum on joining.