Jump to content

British Politics


Gracii Guns

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

So you want a sort of non-binding/mini referendum in order to ascertain whether the leave vote has shifted to remain? If it has you'd then have a nationwide referendum? 

I don't really want anything here. I am an objective bystander with no horses in the race. But I do see some issues that is interesting from the perspective of functioning democracies.

I think it is un-democratic to go on with a Brexit two years after the referendum if people have changed their opinion. Stubbornly saying that people wanted this two years ago so now they are going to have it, makes no sense to me. And to ascertain whether that has happened, whether there has been a shift in opinion, a statistical survey (not a "mini referendum" because there is no voting involved) would make sense.

And furthermore, I think the whole process has been ass-backwards. The alternatives should have been explored as much as possible before a referendum to stay or leave was given to the public. In a way I think it is a pity that the Brits have to sort of go through this as the first country (because I happen to like them). To be the guinea pig of exiting the EU. But the rest of Europe learn a lot from it, what to do and what not to do :)

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

And you'd just get a bunch of manipulated results and/or funny interpretations of the shit to suit whatever shit the party in question wanted to shovel.  I agree though that you're right in what you are saying, it certainly seems a sensible approach but you're kinda assuming that the presenters of this info are gonna be straight up honest people that give it to you like it is and if they were that kind of people we wouldn't be in the situation we're in now cuz it would've been these same cunts we've got now dealing out the hand so what difference would it make?  But yeah, i like that, as an idea, certainly seems sensible.  Fact finding and that. 

What? You don't trust your Official Agency of Statistics!?!

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see any evidence of people changing their mind. I do however see what can be termed, as I suffer from it myself, ''Brexit fatigue'' and/or ''Brexit boredom'', a belief that the elected Members of Parliament should just ''get on with it''. ''I'm sick and bored of Brexit'' is a common opinion I believe. For someone who voted leave this transpires into a belief that ''MPs should implement what they voted for in 2016''.

A second referendum would, besides pissing away another £130 million, consequentially be about as welcome as a punch in the face. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I don't see any evidence of people changing their mind.

You cannot see such evidence before it has been presented in front of you. Newspaper polls mean shit. What your friends say mean shit. What people say on forums mean shit. This isn't statistical evidence.

My point is that such evidence could be brought forward quickly and at little cost. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I think it is un-democratic to go on with a Brexit two years after the referendum if people have changed their opinion

So the whole thing was set up to fail from the get-go and its all been a complete waste of time?  Because it could've never been implemented immediately soooo...its all been a bit of a cocksuck, a very expensive cocksuck if the numbers that Dies' is chucking about up there are at all realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

You cannot see such evidence before it has been presented in front of you. Newspaper polls mean shit. What your friends say mean shit. What people say on forums mean shit. This isn't statistical evidence.

My point is that such evidence could be brought forward quickly and at little cost. 

I simply don't understand the mechanism you're proposing. What is triggering the bringing forward of evidence?  Your process sounds convoluted, messy and unconstitutional. Even the people who desire a second referendum here simply want a second referendum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So the whole thing was set up to fail from the get-go and its all been a complete waste of time?  Because it could've never been implemented immediately soooo...its all been a bit of a cocksuck, a very expensive cocksuck if the numbers that Dies' is chucking about up there are at all realistic.

£130 million for the 2016 referendum!

If we voted remain in a second referendum, i.e., the status quo, that would mean we would've chucked £260 million down the pisser. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm surprised at the EU too, would they be receptive to this?  'Hang on, hang on, we take it all back, we want to be your friends again, we've had another vote and we've decided that you ain't all smelly garlic eating ratbags out to take our jobs, can we be your special friends again?', ugh.

Edited by Len Cnut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

I simply don't understand the mechanism you're proposing. What is triggering the bringing forward of evidence?  Your process sounds convoluted, messy and unconstitutional. Even the people who desire a second referendum here simply want a second referendum. 

Well, if two years have passed since a referendum, and the government hasn't been able perform the mandate given to them by the population, then that alone should trigger a desire to find out if people still have changed their opinion. Getting a survey done and then, if the opinion has shifted, perform a second referendum, may seem "convoluted, messy and unconstitutional" to you, but it is better than going ahead with something that is in conflict with what people want.

7 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

So the whole thing was set up to fail from the get-go and its all been a complete waste of time?  Because it could've never been implemented immediately soooo...its all been a bit of a cocksuck, a very expensive cocksuck if the numbers that Dies' is chucking about up there are at all realistic.

Yes, it has been a tragically flawed process. Again, we all learn from this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

Well, if two years have passed since a referendum, and the government hasn't been able perform the mandate given to them by the population, then that alone should trigger a desire to find out if people still have changed their opinion. Getting a survey done and then, if the opinion has shifted, perform a second referendum, may seem "convoluted, messy and unconstitutional" to you, but it is better than going ahead with something that is in conflict with what people want.

That is actually more an argument for a general election.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I am sure the referendum in itself didn't cost £ 130 million. That must include post- or pre-work :lol:

Quote

Operational costs including staffing, raising public awareness of the referendum, running polling stations, administering postal ballots and counting votes amounted to 129.1 million pounds, a report by Britain’s Electoral Commission said. The report did not cover spending by campaigners or referendum campaign broadcast costs.

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-referendum-costs/britains-eu-referendum-cost-almost-130-million-pounds-to-organise-idUKKBN1OD1FT

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I actually already read the report in Financial Times are edited my post ;)

What do you mean by ''actual referendum''? If you remove what I quoted, manning the booths, postal ballots, counting votes, you don't have a referendum to begin with!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

What do you mean by ''actual referendum''? If you remove what I quoted, manning the booths, postal ballots, counting votes, you don't have a referendum to begin with!

I excluded the costs of statuary grants to the two campaigns, mail-outs by each side, and the public awareness campaign. That leaves 94 million.

Anyway, if people have changed their opinion then another 100 million should be paid to go through a second referendum. You can't botch this bad and not be punished for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I excluded the costs of statuary grants to the two campaigns, mail-outs by each side, and the public awareness campaign. That leaves 94 million.

Anyway, if people have changed their opinion then another 100 million should be paid to go through a second referendum. You can't botch this bad and not be punished for it.

The figure I quoted didn't include campaigning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster Leonard is implying he wants to whore himself out to you. And you don't even care, do you? Typical coldhearted reptilian European. :lol:

And they wonder why we voted leave, the cunts :lol:  Although if I'm not mistaken Norway aren't members are they?  Norway are kinda G'ed up like that, all self sufficient, on the sidelines, watching all the other wankers cock the continent up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

The figure I quoted didn't include campaigning. 

I got the numbers here: https://www.ft.com/content/f0a62bb4-ff9e-11e8-ac00-57a2a826423e

But it doesn't matter, whether it was 100 or 130 million, I was still wrong in being surprised it was this expensive, and it still doesn't affect the necessity of doing a second referendum if there is good evidence that the public's opinion has shifted.

3 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

@SoulMonster Leonard is implying he wants to whore himself out to you. And you don't even care, do you? Typical coldhearted reptilian European. :lol:

Oh, I care. Leonard and I are busy PM'ing the costs. He wants to pay in broken swans, I want a season ticket to Old Trafford, so we are kinda deadlocked at the moment.

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

And they wonder why we voted leave, the cunts :lol:  Although if I'm not mistaken Norway aren't members are they?  Norway are kinda G'ed up like that, all self sufficient, on the sidelines, watching all the other wankers cock the continent up.

We cock up on a smaller scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, SoulMonster said:

I got the numbers here: https://www.ft.com/content/f0a62bb4-ff9e-11e8-ac00-57a2a826423e

But it doesn't matter, whether it was 100 or 130 million, I was still wrong in being surprised it was this expensive, and it still doesn't affect the necessity of doing a second referendum if there is good evidence that the public's opinion has shifted.

My gawwd!!

Is that (dare I say) humility from Teutonic Soul? Is that an admission of error?

I am in shock.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...