Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
If there is a second referendum ...
Options
Comments
-
Noones ever said the EU isn't moving.
I don't like the dominance of multinational companies either, but feel we'll be able to handle them better with the EU. The EU at least is making efforts to curb them and make them pay their tax. The UKs track record in those regards are the polar opposite.0 -
This theory that old people are leavers is one which worries me a lot. I am over 65 & was at the time of the vote. I live in a leave area. I know many people who are over 65, all of whom voted remain. The ones who voted leave are in their 40s & 50s.
Whilst it could be expected that my close friends would vote the same as I did, it seems doubtful that all my casual acquaintances would vote remain too as that would be statistically unlikely IF the theory was correct. That would be just too much of a coincidence.
So I wonder where these figures came from. If it was from an exit poll, then who did it & were those over 65s intimidated by it & said what their questioners wanted to hear?
In my bowling (lawn bowls not ten pin) club (average age probably about mid 70's), I maybe the only remainer there (I stopped asking when it became apparent I was in a huge minority, if not alone).Chuck Norris can kill two stones with one birdThe only time Chuck Norris was wrong was when he thought he had made a mistakeChuck Norris puts the "laughter" in "manslaughter".I've started running again, after several injuries had forced me to stop0 -
You have two questions.
Q1. Leave or remain.
Q2. If you voted leave, do you want May's deal or no deal.
That way the leave vote isn't split between leave or remain. The "leavers" then get the choice as to what kind of leave.
Better to have the single transferable vote.
Its possible that someone might want to Leave on May's plan but would rather remain than have no deal/WTO for example.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Do you think there should be a threshold on victory?
A lot of people were clearly unhappy with a 52/48 split.
What about 55/45 , or 60/40 ?
Clearly had there been this requirement in 2016 we would not have been in this mess.
The problem now is how to interpret the outcome with a threshold.
Say Remain won the second referendum 52/48. As it does not meet the threshold do you interpret this as maintaing the status quo (ie to Remain) or a vote to maintain the status quo of the previous referendum? You can make a case either way but it will cause strife.
The real problem for the nation is that around half the nation want to remain and half to leave but those wanting to leave do not agree on which type of Brexit we should have. The easist solution now is ask people to rank the options our government can actually deliver and use some form of proportional representation. That will eliminate the least popular option.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
A_Pandiculation wrote: »No, two and a half years have shown that our government seem unwilling to deliver Brexit.
Delivering Brexit is potentially extremely easy. We say we are going (did that bit) then we should have said something like " Okay, two years & we're off. You have two years to decide whether or not you want to carry on with mutual trade and if you do, how much in the way of obstacles you want. We are preparing for a WTO Brexit."
That would have saved us from most of the nonsense we've seen on all sides for these past two years and already the UK would know it's future with far more certainty that we do now.
Therefore it's fairly obvious that it's only the underhanded attempts to keep us in the EU that have led to uncertainty.
Had we done that the Government's position might be more defensible. Instead we spent a year debating what we wanted and another year debating why we could not have it. We also managed a botched election and a divided cabinet and governing party.
From an EU perspective we have indeed been nebulous. We have been told time and time again that the 4 EU freedoms were inseparable and that we could not cherry pick them. We have turned nebulousness into a fine art as our politicians told us we could limit freedom of movement and keep frictionless/free trade etc..
The EU has been consistent throughout but English arrogance has shone through this whole mess.
Your way would have ensured an honourable exit (albeit breaking up the UK and making us much poorer). May's way is making us a laughing stock. Someone has got to get a grip of this mess. If Parliament cannot, they should let the people decide.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
It's the type of exit set out in the leaflet Dave Cameron & co sent out to all the households.
Clearly, he would not have signed off on the wording if they weren't prepared to accept the consequences.
Only that leaflet represented the official interpretation; anything said by individual Leave campaigners was just usual political campaign rhetoric.
Since he knew that he would not be there after losing the referendum and so not have to implement this vision that he clearly did not believe, I think the assumption you make is flawed.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Since he knew that he would not be there after losing the referendum and so not have to implement this vision that he clearly did not believe, I think the assumption you make is flawed.
The only flawed assumption was the idea that Cameron had the gonads to see something he initiated through.
It doesn't change the implications written in that pamphlet though.0 -
It's the type of exit set out in the leaflet Dave Cameron & co sent out to all the households.
Clearly, he would not have signed off on the wording if they weren't prepared to accept the consequences.
Only that leaflet represented the official interpretation; anything said by individual Leave campaigners was just usual political campaign rhetoric.
Clearly Cameron was not prepared to deliver it as he was on his heels almost straight away.
Johnson also dodged any responsibility for delivering anything other than underhand and often not so underhand snipes.
Like May's deal or not she is at least trying to deliver, something akin to what Parliament agreed to and I have great admiration for the way she has conducted herself in the face of extreme criticism and goading from many that were too scared to take up the mantle.:T0 -
Had we done that the Government's position might be more defensible. Instead we spent a year debating what we wanted and another year debating why we could not have it. We also managed a botched election and a divided cabinet and governing party.
From an EU perspective we have indeed been nebulous. We have been told time and time again that the 4 EU freedoms were inseparable and that we could not cherry pick them. We have turned nebulousness into a fine art as our politicians told us we could limit freedom of movement and keep frictionless/free trade etc..
The EU has been consistent throughout but [STRIKE]English[/STRIKE] British politician's arrogance has shone through this whole mess.
Your way would have ensured an honourable exit (albeit breaking up the UK and making us much poorer). May's way is making us a laughing stock. Someone has got to get a grip of this mess. If Parliament cannot, they should let the people decide.
Corrected that for you
We should change parliament, primarily to reduce the 650 spongers down to a reasonable number of representatives c200.
And secondly we should challenge them to deliver what the people voted for, to leave, and what they also voted for by revoking Article 50.
We entrust them with our livelihoods and our futures and all we get is clowns and bickering:mad:0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards