Regular Savings Advice

bundoran

ValiantSon wrote: »

The majority of the electorate did not vote "Leave".

The majority of those who voted chose Leave.

Which still means you lost. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

The result of the referendum was decided under current electoral law, not according to whatever dictionary you're waving, or on the basis of a distillation of whatever extensive education you're boasting about.

And you still lost because the majority voted to leave. Electoral law does not contain the assumption you're pedalling.

Terry_Towelling

At the end of the day less than 50% of those eligible to vote expressed a desire to leave by voting that way and a slightly lower number than that expressed a desire to remain - but we are still leaving.


Perhaps those 'tacit remainers' will now have learned a valuable lesson about the risks of abstention and the 'tacit leavers' will have breathed a sigh of relief.

RG2015

bundoran wrote: »

51.89% of 72.2% voted to leave, but even fewer voted to remain.

Abstentions don't count as tacit support for the status quo. You just made that up.

The "actual majority" voted to leave.

ValiantSon wrote: »

Yes. As I said in the post, I am the source. I have summarised the position based on the understanding of abstention in referenda as it stands in political science.

Like bundoran said, you made it up.

Strange nobody else in 2 years has claimed that everyone that abstained was tacitly in favour of the status quo. But you are within your rights to believe whatever you want.

ValiantSon

bundoran wrote: »

The majority of those who voted chose Leave.

Which still means you lost. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

You have assumed that I voted to remain. That's a pretty big assumption. What is more, it is rather sad that you feel the need to gloat; it does not do you any favours. Democracy requires respect for those of a different viewpoint, and sadly I have seen little of that from the very vocal leave supporters (with a few honourable exceptions).

bundoran wrote: »

The result of the referendum was decided under current electoral law, not according to whatever dictionary you're waving, or on the basis of a distillation of whatever extensive education you're boasting about.

I wasn't boasting about my education. It is a fact, plain and simple.

If you are going to start talking about electoral law, then it would be to your advantage if you actually knew what the law says. Referenda, in the UK, are only advisory. They are non-binding expressions of opinion, and parliament remains sovereign. It is for parliament to decide. Furthermore, referenda are a poor mechanism in a parliamentary democracy, as they circumvent the established consitutional settlement.

Oh, and "electoral law" is irrelevant to referenda: a referendum is not an election. The Representation of the People Act, 1983 has nothing to do with referenda. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act, 2000 establishes a framework for referendums, but is in itself merely an enabling adn regulatory act (with regard to referenda), with each individual referendum requiring its own act of parliament. So it is the specific terms of the European Union Referendum Act, 2015. The terms of this act could have as easily required a qualified majority, as they did a simple majority (and there could have been many other differences too). It is the government who have driven the result of the referendum into law, and the supine Labour oposition. This actually creates a weakness in our constitution.

bundoran wrote: »

And you still lost because the majority voted to leave. Electoral law does not contain the assumption you're pedalling.

It isn't an assumption, but your narrow partisan viewpoint won't allow you to understand what I have said. Oh well, your problem, not mine.

ValiantSon

RG2015 wrote: »

Like bundoran said, you made it up.

No I didn't. You just don't have the relevant knowledge, and an internet forum is not the place for me to enlighten you any further. Don't be so arrogant.

Feel free to enrol on a politics undergraduate degree course.

RG2015 wrote: »

Strange nobody else in 2 years has claimed that everyone that abstained was tacitly in favour of the status quo. But you are within your rights to believe whatever you want.

They have, actually, but it tends not to make it into the mainstream media because the argument doesn't make good headlines.

You are also free to believe whatever gibberish interpretation of political science that you wish too, but it will be wrong.

RG2015

ValiantSon wrote: »

No I didn't. You just don't have the relevant knowledge, and an internet forum is not the place for me to enlighten you any further. Don't be so arrogant.

Feel free to enrol on a politics undergraduate degree course.

You are also free to believe whatever gibberish interpretation of political science that you wish too, but it will be wrong.

Apologies for my arrogance. There really is no place for it on an internet forum.

:rotfl:

Zero_Sum

Can we stop.derailing the thread with Brexit?

System

Gosh, is this still going on?! !!!128514; I agree with zero sum above

Terry_Towelling

Zero_Sum wrote: »

Can we stop.derailing the thread with Brexit?

I tried to do just that in Post #63 by using one of aj23's own examples to show where he had probably misunderstood the effect of interest rates. Sadly aj23 seems to have set up a nice argument and left them to it.

I then attempted some diplomacy on the 'tacit' argument that had ensued. Of course, they are so wrapped up with insulting each other, they just ignored everything and carried on.