Consequences Of Brexit [Part 8] Read First Post Before Posting

[Jim Hardie 527]

2 hours ago, Longcol said:

Is that an upgrade on Pakistan?

 

 

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=british+india+map&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#imgrc=FXX7tAmW0k40GM:

 

Pakistan is the bit left of the Indus (mostly).

[Ontarian1981 10]

11 minutes ago, Jim Hardie said:

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=british+india+map&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-gb&client=safari#imgrc=FXX7tAmW0k40GM:

 

Pakistan is the bit left of the Indus (mostly).

 It's on the right  of the Indus, if you are looking down from China.😉

[RJRB 688]

8 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

You’re more optimistic than I am. A big chunk of the press are behind Boris - <removed> and all. So what if it turns to ****. Boris wont take the blame, the press won’t blame Boris but will start pointing fingers at the eu, remainers for “not believing enough” or other “foreigners”.

 

Not Boris though.

You are probably right.Trump seems to have the same ability to dodge the bullet when his threats and promises evaporate with time.

People are gullible.

Edited August 31, 2019 by nikki-red

[Robin-H 11]

8 hours ago, Pettytom said:

Parliament could sit, if necessary. That is the salient point.

 

Please don’t tell me that you’ve fallen for this nonsense. 

Fallen for what? I've said it is clear that it is a negotiating tactic. I've also said that prorogation has been used in the past for political advantage. 

[Robin-H 11]

8 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

No you haven’t. All you did was state that my claim that over 1 million people who voted in 2016 are now dead was wrong but didn’t explain why.

 

So let’s examine the facts.

 

Deaths since June 2016

 

June-December 2016   495,767*

2017   533,253*

2018   559,915*

Jan-August 2019   167,974 (estimated)

 

Total deaths since June 2016 1,756,909 

 

Only 72.2% of the electorate voted in 2016 so of the 1,756,909 who have died, probably only 1,268,488 voted. When the biggest poll since 2016 was carried out by Channel Four which showed that 55% now support remaining, one of the reasons given was that most people who died were old Leave voters. John Curtice from Glasgow cautioned that not all old people, while although more likely to vote, would have been mentally or physically capable of voting. He put this figure somewhere between 10-15% of the very old.

 

So let’s take that upper figure (15%) and take it from the ‘death toll’.

 

15% of 1,268,488 is 190,273. Take that from the 1,268,488 and that leaves 1,078,215 who voted in 2016 who are now dead.

 

So when I said that over 1 million people who voted in 2016 are now dead, how is that wrong?

 

(*all figures from the Office of National Statistics)

How many voters of the 1975 referendum have died, or any other referendum for that matter? Voters die all the time, meaning the opinions represented on the day of the vote aren't preserved in aspic forever.

 

Does this mean that all referendums should be repeated to get up to date opinions on matters. How often? 

[Top Cats Hat 10]

10 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

How many voters of the 1975 referendum have died, or any other referendum for that matter?

It’s irrelevant.

 

Lockdoctor claimed that the result of the June 2016 referendum was evidence that in August 2019, the majority of the people support leaving the EU. I simply pointed out that the referendum result was completely irrelevant now, not least because over a million people involved in that referendum are now brown bread.

[Robin-H 11]

Just now, Top Cats Hat said:

It’s irrelevant.

 

Lockdoctor claimed that the result of the June 2016 referendum was evidence that in August 2019, the majority of the people support leaving the EU. I simply pointed out that the referendum result was completely irrelevant now, not least because over a million people involved in that referendum are now brown bread.

I get that, but I'm asking if you think the referendum result is completely irrelevant after 3 years, how often should referendums be repeated? Every 3 years.  

[Top Cats Hat 10]

41 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

I get that, but I'm asking if you think the referendum result is completely irrelevant after 3 years, how often should referendums be repeated? Every 3 years.  

We shouldn’t be having referendums at all.

 

We have elections every five years where parties can propose changes and if we don’t like them we can boot them out at the next election and vote someone else in.

[Lockdoctor 10]

10 hours ago, taxman said:

No-one voted to leave the EU without a deal that would still let us trade with them, enjoy holidays abroad without visas, not have the £ worth less than the Euro, chlorinated chicken, ....thats what your no deal Brexit fanatics want.

 

Fine, if you are crazy mental about leaving a political union then great, but don't then chuck the UK to the dogs without being able to trade with countries, visit them, have workers from them (the doctors and nurses and carers who will be looking after you when you are ill). We had a good deal and it's been spaffed up the wall by naysayers, liars and spivs.

 

Never mind, you've got your blue passports back.....made by a foreign company.

The majority of those who voted, chose to leave the EU.  Leaving the EU without a deal was always a possibility. Theresa May stated many times at the beginning of her time as Prime Minister that no-deal is better than a bad deal.  Boris is trying to get a deal but is not being helped by those seeking to take no-deal off the table.  The latest opinion poll shows the Tory Party has doubled their lead  over Labour in just three weeks.  The majority of those asked believe Boris is doing a good job including  many  Labour Party supporters.  It's only people like you who don't respect the democratic EU referendum result who are not happy with what Boris is doing.

 

I voted to remain in the EU and have never worried about the colour of a passport.

[Lockdoctor 10]

2 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We shouldn’t be having referendums at all.

 

We have elections every five years where parties can propose changes and if we don’t like them we can boot them out at the next election and vote someone else in.

The MPs voted overwhelmingly to hold the 2016 EU referendum.  It was Philip Hammond who introduced the  bill into Parliament. That is the same Philip Hammond who now seeks to block the implementation of the result of the  referendum which he wanted to happen and asked all MPs to support.

[Robin-H 11]

12 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

We shouldn’t be having referendums at all.

 

We have elections every five years where parties can propose changes and if we don’t like them we can boot them out at the next election and vote someone else in.

So how do you think big decisions, such as staying in or leaving the EU, or (in Scotland's case) independence, or the many examples of foreign referendums (ending apartheid etc) be decided? 

[Pettytom 1]

3 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

So how do you think big decisions, such as staying in or leaving the EU, or (in Scotland's case) independence, or the many examples of foreign referendums (ending apartheid etc) be decided? 

We could elect representatives to a parliament and let them make decisions on our behalf. 

 

The advantage of that  system is that complex and linked decisions won’t get taken in isolation.

 

If you don’t like the way your representative represents you, we could devise a  system for making the available for replacement. Say, every five years.