This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I am still in the undecideds, my head says In, my heart says Out and my ears say I wish both sides would stop lying and stop assuming that we are all morons and will believe all the nonsense they say.
I will happily accept what ever the outcome is IF the vote was an overwhelming majority one way or the other. But the idea that we could have a 50.1% - 49.9% result which patently would not be the will of the people disturbs me enormously.
Would Parliament really accept a very close vote?
I will happily accept what ever the outcome is IF the vote was an overwhelming majority one way or the other. But the idea that we could have a 50.1% - 49.9% result which patently would not be the will of the people disturbs me enormously.
Would Parliament really accept a very close vote?
4
In reply to m0unt41n:
Ask yourself what it is that makes your heart say something your head knows full well to be rubbish. Then get over it and vote Remain.
Ask yourself what it is that makes your heart say something your head knows full well to be rubbish. Then get over it and vote Remain.
29
15
In reply to m0unt41n:
I believe Parliament is obliged to accept whichever vote wins, even if it is by a single vote.
I want to know what happens if there is a draw.
I believe Parliament is obliged to accept whichever vote wins, even if it is by a single vote.
I want to know what happens if there is a draw.
In reply to john arran:
I am undecided because I have had a month of arguments of this sort of quality.
> Ask yourself what it is that makes your heart say something your head knows full well to be rubbish. Then get over it and vote Remain.
I am undecided because I have had a month of arguments of this sort of quality.
12
2
In reply to m0unt41n:
If you can spare 20 minutes have a listen to this talk by a professor of European law at Liverpool
youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&
If you can spare 20 minutes have a listen to this talk by a professor of European law at Liverpool
youtube.com/watch?v=USTypBKEd8Y&
9
2
In reply to ianstevens:
Yes I am sure you are right but it would surely be very hard to get anything through Parliament if the vote was that close.
Yes I am sure you are right but it would surely be very hard to get anything through Parliament if the vote was that close.
In reply to Doug:
Love his expression "dishonesty on an industrial scale" which neatly sums it all up.
Love his expression "dishonesty on an industrial scale" which neatly sums it all up.
5
In reply to m0unt41n:
The argument itself is extremely simple and undeniable; quality doesn't come into it. Unless you think you can read the future in tea leaves or palm lines the only things you can base a decision on are reasoned arguments - i.e. the head.
If you then choose to ignore all such reasoned arguments and vote for entirely the opposite then you'll deserve the mess it will get us into.
> I am undecided because I have had a month of arguments of this sort of quality.
The argument itself is extremely simple and undeniable; quality doesn't come into it. Unless you think you can read the future in tea leaves or palm lines the only things you can base a decision on are reasoned arguments - i.e. the head.
If you then choose to ignore all such reasoned arguments and vote for entirely the opposite then you'll deserve the mess it will get us into.
7
7
In reply to m0unt41n: i think you need to ask yourself what will improve if we exit, and how will this be achieved.
I don't think leave have really given solid answers to any of this, it's all rhetoric and no detail, though I accept that remain reach for the nuclear button far too easily, rather than suggesting that everything will just be a bit worse.
Apart from uk trawler owners, I really can't see what benefits to the average person can be delivered by leaving
I don't think leave have really given solid answers to any of this, it's all rhetoric and no detail, though I accept that remain reach for the nuclear button far too easily, rather than suggesting that everything will just be a bit worse.
Apart from uk trawler owners, I really can't see what benefits to the average person can be delivered by leaving
3
In reply to m0unt41n:
I think if the result was really close, say within 1% or so there would be a host of arguments and challenges to from the losing side about fairness of the vote, BBC bias, unfair spending etc etc.
But unless a legal ruling can overturn it I guess a majority of just 1 vote is enough. Otherwise what is the alternative? You'd have to keep having re runs until one side can't be bothered to keep voting and someone wins out by at least 5% or so.
I think if the result was really close, say within 1% or so there would be a host of arguments and challenges to from the losing side about fairness of the vote, BBC bias, unfair spending etc etc.
But unless a legal ruling can overturn it I guess a majority of just 1 vote is enough. Otherwise what is the alternative? You'd have to keep having re runs until one side can't be bothered to keep voting and someone wins out by at least 5% or so.
In reply to Lord_ash2000:
Fixed
> I think there will be a host of arguments and challenges to from the losing side about fairness of the vote, BBC bias, unfair spending etc etc.
Fixed
2
In reply to Doug:
I listened to him. A few points..
a) he doesn't mention immigration once (fine, not his area of expertise...but widely missing the point of why many leave voters are voting leave) Only to say that if you want the single market, you MUST have free movement of people. Non negotiable....apparently. OK. So if we don't want free movement then we must leave single market...what would that mean...well
b) He says currently our single market access allows us to trade freely with the EU because we have agreed already on component/safety/regulatory type issues (he uses an example of a UK computer /chip manufacturer already complying through single market homogenisation of regulations) So, if we left....is he implying that the computer/chip manufacturer will suddenly change it's production practices and start producing something else? Or will it continue to manufacture the same product that was fully compliant with EU law/regulations as before and therefore should be freely able to access the EU market as it is fully compliant? I can imagine some initial red tape, import duties? what else?
c) He implies we currently trade with the rest of the world with not that much to offer but leverage access to other EU members to gain an advantage? Really?
Hey, he's a prof at Liverpool Uni so who am I to argue ,
BTW, when will the REMAIN camp realise that immigration is the concern they should be addressing, Obviously Corbyn didn't understand the memo when he came out with "no upper limit on EU immigration whilst in EU" yesterday (loose cannon that he is lol) I'm not sure how useful all this economic analysis is in trying to swing leavers across myself. But if it's all they have.....
I listened to him. A few points..
a) he doesn't mention immigration once (fine, not his area of expertise...but widely missing the point of why many leave voters are voting leave) Only to say that if you want the single market, you MUST have free movement of people. Non negotiable....apparently. OK. So if we don't want free movement then we must leave single market...what would that mean...well
b) He says currently our single market access allows us to trade freely with the EU because we have agreed already on component/safety/regulatory type issues (he uses an example of a UK computer /chip manufacturer already complying through single market homogenisation of regulations) So, if we left....is he implying that the computer/chip manufacturer will suddenly change it's production practices and start producing something else? Or will it continue to manufacture the same product that was fully compliant with EU law/regulations as before and therefore should be freely able to access the EU market as it is fully compliant? I can imagine some initial red tape, import duties? what else?
c) He implies we currently trade with the rest of the world with not that much to offer but leverage access to other EU members to gain an advantage? Really?
Hey, he's a prof at Liverpool Uni so who am I to argue ,
BTW, when will the REMAIN camp realise that immigration is the concern they should be addressing, Obviously Corbyn didn't understand the memo when he came out with "no upper limit on EU immigration whilst in EU" yesterday (loose cannon that he is lol) I'm not sure how useful all this economic analysis is in trying to swing leavers across myself. But if it's all they have.....
Post edited at 14:20
2
In reply to john arran:
Crock of shit.
I'm in the same position.
My heart says the next generation would be better with us out.
I do believe if we leave it would throw us back into recession for a few years and I don't fancy dealing with another one of those so my head is saying remain.
Crock of shit.
I'm in the same position.
My heart says the next generation would be better with us out.
I do believe if we leave it would throw us back into recession for a few years and I don't fancy dealing with another one of those so my head is saying remain.
3
5
In reply to m0unt41n:
Much better to remain and vote for a government that get us a a good deal rather than taking you bat home and possibly cocking it up for this and other countries.
Much better to remain and vote for a government that get us a a good deal rather than taking you bat home and possibly cocking it up for this and other countries.
In reply to elliott92:
If you can explain WHY you think your heart is saying that then by definition you're applying a reasoned argument, even if you then go on to counter it with other reasons to vote Remain. My point was that voting on the basis of a hunch and with no real idea of why you feel that way is nonsensical. I'm finding it quite baffling that this much isn't obvious to everyone.
If you can explain WHY you think your heart is saying that then by definition you're applying a reasoned argument, even if you then go on to counter it with other reasons to vote Remain. My point was that voting on the basis of a hunch and with no real idea of why you feel that way is nonsensical. I'm finding it quite baffling that this much isn't obvious to everyone.
4
3
In reply to Bulls Crack:
What has other countries got to do with it?
And if I am not mistaken, aren't there now a lot of people in other EU States, er I mean Countries demanding their own Referendum?
Surely that speaks volumes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/how-brexit-could-lead-to-other-e...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/646796/Dutch-voters-in-out-EU-refere...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/swedes-tell-britain-if-you-leave-the-e...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-most-wants-britain-to...
http://europe.newsweek.com/nearly-half-voters-eight-eu-countries-want-own-b...
What has other countries got to do with it?
And if I am not mistaken, aren't there now a lot of people in other EU States, er I mean Countries demanding their own Referendum?
Surely that speaks volumes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/how-brexit-could-lead-to-other-e...
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/646796/Dutch-voters-in-out-EU-refere...
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/swedes-tell-britain-if-you-leave-the-e...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-most-wants-britain-to...
http://europe.newsweek.com/nearly-half-voters-eight-eu-countries-want-own-b...
2
In reply to m0unt41n:
Anyone else seen this?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexi...
Anyone else seen this?
http://uk.businessinsider.com/green-eu-referendum-not-legally-binding-brexi...
In reply to m0unt41n:
Put simply it is no different to having bought a house 40 years ago in an exclusive development to find now it has grown out of all proportion and the developer wants to keep on expanding it.
Moving elsewhere would obviously have a cost and inconvenience of putting down new roots but it might just be better. Staying put is a lot easier and cheaper but only because you hope the builder will not sell any more houses to the youngsters who are now creating so much noise and fuss.
One uses facts and just hopes that the future doesn't change, the other knows that it will change but hopes it will be for the better.
I do not think that there is a correct answer.
Put simply it is no different to having bought a house 40 years ago in an exclusive development to find now it has grown out of all proportion and the developer wants to keep on expanding it.
Moving elsewhere would obviously have a cost and inconvenience of putting down new roots but it might just be better. Staying put is a lot easier and cheaper but only because you hope the builder will not sell any more houses to the youngsters who are now creating so much noise and fuss.
One uses facts and just hopes that the future doesn't change, the other knows that it will change but hopes it will be for the better.
I do not think that there is a correct answer.
5
In reply to Bootrock:
There are yet more people in other countries who are saying they want us to stay, though. It would appear that opinions being mixed is a common theme.
There are yet more people in other countries who are saying they want us to stay, though. It would appear that opinions being mixed is a common theme.
In reply to andyfallsoff:
My heart says Remain. My head says Remain. And I am sick to my stomach when I hear Gove and Farage ranting about making Britain great again.
My heart says Remain. My head says Remain. And I am sick to my stomach when I hear Gove and Farage ranting about making Britain great again.
13
3
In reply to m0unt41n:
I'm not 100% convinced by this analogy to be honest. A lot of people are in favour of staying inside the EU because they feel that we get a lot of very tangible benefits from it and think that losing those benefits would be bad for large parts of the country. It's more like we think it's a nice neighbourhood and we get on well with the neighbours - borrow the odd cup of sugar, invite them over for a barbecue from time to time, have a neighbourhood watch scheme set up, let the kids play around each others houses - and we don't want to up sticks and leave it behind and move to an isolated farmhouse in the middle of nowhere just because someone heard that someone said that someone thought that the new family down the road didn't look like "our sort of people".
Also... for all the talk of "project fear" by the Remain campaign on the economy, the scaremongering that the Leave campaign have been engaged in over the possibility of future enlargement of the EU has a relationship to reality so tenuous that it'd leave Donald Trump wondering if he was pushing it a bit.
I'm not 100% convinced by this analogy to be honest. A lot of people are in favour of staying inside the EU because they feel that we get a lot of very tangible benefits from it and think that losing those benefits would be bad for large parts of the country. It's more like we think it's a nice neighbourhood and we get on well with the neighbours - borrow the odd cup of sugar, invite them over for a barbecue from time to time, have a neighbourhood watch scheme set up, let the kids play around each others houses - and we don't want to up sticks and leave it behind and move to an isolated farmhouse in the middle of nowhere just because someone heard that someone said that someone thought that the new family down the road didn't look like "our sort of people".
Also... for all the talk of "project fear" by the Remain campaign on the economy, the scaremongering that the Leave campaign have been engaged in over the possibility of future enlargement of the EU has a relationship to reality so tenuous that it'd leave Donald Trump wondering if he was pushing it a bit.
8
In reply to Pete Pozman:
Sounds like your stomach told you to Remain too.
> My heart says Remain. My head says Remain. And I am sick to my stomach when I hear Gove and Farage ranting about making Britain great again.
Sounds like your stomach told you to Remain too.
4
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:
Most of our immigration is from outside the EU.
Most of our immigrants come and work.
The ease of emigrating means that a tranche of our elderly population who could be a burden on the NHS etc move to Spain.
Many of our doctors, nurses etc come from abroad (because we do not have enough Brits wanting the jobs, there is no shortage of vacancies)
Most of our immigration is from outside the EU.
Most of our immigrants come and work.
The ease of emigrating means that a tranche of our elderly population who could be a burden on the NHS etc move to Spain.
Many of our doctors, nurses etc come from abroad (because we do not have enough Brits wanting the jobs, there is no shortage of vacancies)
3
2
In reply to girlymonkey:
> Most of our immigration is from outside the EU. its approx 50/50 eu/non eu. If it's a huge concern and 50% is uncontrolled (the eu part) then why not address it rather than say lies like "we will get it down to tens of thousands" (Cameron) At least Corbyn is honest when he says no upper limit on immigration from the EU whilst we remain. The Remain camp consistently ignore this main concern and only bang on about economy
> Most of our immigrants come and work. Fine, until they take or undercut your job . All Remain say is they are a net contributor to our economy and the NHS would collapse without them. Hard to swallow when empirically you are worse off because you are competing with transient EU tradies living 5 to a room. Remember. It's not "no immigration" it's no "uncontrolled immigration" that many on the leave side are concerned about.
> The ease of emigrating means that a tranche of our elderly population who could be a burden on the NHS etc move to Spain. Lol.
> Many of our doctors, nurses etc come from abroad (because we do not have enough Brits wanting the jobs, there is no shortage of vacancies) Fine, no one is saying no immigration. Bring in what we need. Doctors and nurses apparently
In reply to Phil Payne:
Think it's a bit of a red herring. If the vote is very close or a low turn out they may dither and offer a second referendum (binding this time) just to make sure, but I can't see it being possible for a government/party to survive if they simply ignore the vote - it would lead to revolution (or at least serious unrest)
> Anyone else seen this?
Think it's a bit of a red herring. If the vote is very close or a low turn out they may dither and offer a second referendum (binding this time) just to make sure, but I can't see it being possible for a government/party to survive if they simply ignore the vote - it would lead to revolution (or at least serious unrest)
In reply to balmybaldwin:
I doubt it would get that far. None of the parties are one minded enough that they wouldnt simply implode.
The numbers are close enough it would be awkward and thats without people standing against it on principle even if they agreed it would have been better ignored.
> but I can't see it being possible for a government/party to survive if they simply ignore the vote - it would lead to revolution (or at least serious unrest)
I doubt it would get that far. None of the parties are one minded enough that they wouldnt simply implode.
The numbers are close enough it would be awkward and thats without people standing against it on principle even if they agreed it would have been better ignored.
Post edited at 22:22
In reply to ianstevens:
I believe in general elections, in the case of a draw in a constituency the returning officer has the power to choose the winning candidate. Not sure if that's still the case though.
I wonder how close it would need to be to trigger a recount. There will be mistakes in the counting, so if the vote is so close it'll have been determined by which way those mistakes swung.
To the OP, if you're looking for reasons to overrule your heart, here are two you may not have considered:
1) A vote for Brexit has a strong possibility of bringing about a Scottish departure from the United Kingdom, and increased tensions across the Irish border. It's certainly NOT the patriotic choice.
2) A vote for Brexit will mean this crap will dominate the news agenda for years to come. If you're fed up of this rubbish, vote Remain!
> I believe Parliament is obliged to accept whichever vote wins, even if it is by a single vote.
> I want to know what happens if there is a draw.
I believe in general elections, in the case of a draw in a constituency the returning officer has the power to choose the winning candidate. Not sure if that's still the case though.
I wonder how close it would need to be to trigger a recount. There will be mistakes in the counting, so if the vote is so close it'll have been determined by which way those mistakes swung.
To the OP, if you're looking for reasons to overrule your heart, here are two you may not have considered:
1) A vote for Brexit has a strong possibility of bringing about a Scottish departure from the United Kingdom, and increased tensions across the Irish border. It's certainly NOT the patriotic choice.
2) A vote for Brexit will mean this crap will dominate the news agenda for years to come. If you're fed up of this rubbish, vote Remain!
1
2
In reply to m0unt41n:
We do regularly swallow a 35%-ish vote for a party as a mandate for a majority government, so 51% sounds pretty good to me.
Alan
> I will happily accept what ever the outcome is IF the vote was an overwhelming majority one way or the other. But the idea that we could have a 50.1% - 49.9% result which patently would not be the will of the people disturbs me enormously.
We do regularly swallow a 35%-ish vote for a party as a mandate for a majority government, so 51% sounds pretty good to me.
Alan
2
1
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
A general election is not a binary vote though is it?
(I don't like FPTP, I voted for PR when we had the chance, but it's not a fair comparison)
A general election is not a binary vote though is it?
(I don't like FPTP, I voted for PR when we had the chance, but it's not a fair comparison)
Post edited at 11:21
1
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
The other problem is that if trying to decide on a change to the status quo requiring a large majority will give a serious bias to that status quo.
More of a concern is turn out numbers.
> so 51% sounds pretty good to me.
The other problem is that if trying to decide on a change to the status quo requiring a large majority will give a serious bias to that status quo.
More of a concern is turn out numbers.
In reply to Trevers:
Are you suggesting that the people in England should vote for something they don't like, just because some other people in the UK won't like it? Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
If UK votes to leave, then Scotland votes to leave the UK and subsequently votes to join the EU and the EU accepts them.. etc.. etc.. doesn't that mean that people have democratically chosen their own countries course. There may be turbulence in the middle, but tension rises when people are told what to do and don't feel they have a choice.
There is no patriotic choice as such, if there is then the patriotic choice is the choice of the majority in an election.
> 1) A vote for Brexit has a strong possibility of bringing about a Scottish departure from the United Kingdom, and increased tensions across the Irish border. It's certainly NOT the patriotic choice.
Are you suggesting that the people in England should vote for something they don't like, just because some other people in the UK won't like it? Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
If UK votes to leave, then Scotland votes to leave the UK and subsequently votes to join the EU and the EU accepts them.. etc.. etc.. doesn't that mean that people have democratically chosen their own countries course. There may be turbulence in the middle, but tension rises when people are told what to do and don't feel they have a choice.
There is no patriotic choice as such, if there is then the patriotic choice is the choice of the majority in an election.
1
1
In reply to summo:
I would guess more that Brexiters should consider that if they win, one effect is likely to be the breakup of the UK with all the knock on effects. Weighing this in their decision would be wise.
I would guess more that Brexiters should consider that if they win, one effect is likely to be the breakup of the UK with all the knock on effects. Weighing this in their decision would be wise.
1
1
In reply to summo:
I'm saying that the state of our national union is one of the issues that should factor into people's decisions.
The argument that Leave is the patriotic choice because of some vague vision of regaining "sovereignty" is incredibly naive.
> Are you suggesting that the people in England should vote for something they don't like, just because some other people in the UK won't like it? Doesn't sound very democratic to me.
> If UK votes to leave, then Scotland votes to leave the UK and subsequently votes to join the EU and the EU accepts them.. etc.. etc.. doesn't that mean that people have democratically chosen their own countries course. There may be turbulence in the middle, but tension rises when people are told what to do and don't feel they have a choice.
> There is no patriotic choice as such, if there is then the patriotic choice is the choice of the majority in an election.
I'm saying that the state of our national union is one of the issues that should factor into people's decisions.
The argument that Leave is the patriotic choice because of some vague vision of regaining "sovereignty" is incredibly naive.
In reply to m0unt41n:
I would not worry, even if it is a huge leave majority, Cameron can still try and keep us as much in as he possible can, and of course it is not binding he can just ignore it, as what has he to lose he is on the way out anyway.
> I will happily accept what ever the outcome is IF the vote was an overwhelming majority one way or the other. But the idea that we could have a 50.1% - 49.9% result which patently would not be the will of the people disturbs me enormously.
> Would Parliament really accept a very close vote?
I would not worry, even if it is a huge leave majority, Cameron can still try and keep us as much in as he possible can, and of course it is not binding he can just ignore it, as what has he to lose he is on the way out anyway.
In reply to MG:
> I would guess more that Brexiters should consider that if they win, one effect is likely to be the (accelerated) breakup of the UK with all the knock on effects. Weighing this in their decision would be wise.
In reply to m0unt41n:
Latest polling is between 7 and 10% lead to Remain
Latest polling is between 7 and 10% lead to Remain
> I am still in the undecideds, my head says In, my heart says Out and my ears say I wish both sides would stop lying and stop assuming that we are all morons and will believe all the nonsense they say.
> I will happily accept what ever the outcome is IF the vote was an overwhelming majority one way or the other. But the idea that we could have a 50.1% - 49.9% result which patently would not be the will of the people disturbs me enormously.
> Would Parliament really accept a very close vote?
In reply to Jim C:
I'd imagine that only a very tight result could let him get away with it without triggering major unrest. 55%-45% leave would presumably have to be regarded as the will of the people. 50.1%-49.9% is far more ambiguous.
> I would not worry, even if it is a huge leave majority, Cameron can still try and keep us as much in as he possible can, and of course it is not binding he can just ignore it, as what has he to lose he is on the way out anyway.
I'd imagine that only a very tight result could let him get away with it without triggering major unrest. 55%-45% leave would presumably have to be regarded as the will of the people. 50.1%-49.9% is far more ambiguous.
In reply to m0unt41n:
You might find this article in the Financial Times interesting:
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-gov...
You might find this article in the Financial Times interesting:
http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2016/06/14/can-the-united-kingdom-gov...
In reply to Trevers:
Did you see the Swiss referendum the swiss government ignored?
I can't see hoe Cameron could. I think another party could run and be open that they are for staying in the EU, but I'm nut sure they'd get in doing that.
> I'd imagine that only a very tight result could let him get away with it without triggering major unrest. 55%-45% leave would presumably have to be regarded as the will of the people. 50.1%-49.9% is far more ambiguous.
Did you see the Swiss referendum the swiss government ignored?
I can't see hoe Cameron could. I think another party could run and be open that they are for staying in the EU, but I'm nut sure they'd get in doing that.
In reply to Roadrunner5:
Haha I love that this is disliked.. Just for showing a link to the source. Made my day!
> http://
Haha I love that this is disliked.. Just for showing a link to the source. Made my day!
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...