Guest MattP Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Only 300,000 of the signatures came from the UK anyway according to the Guardian. Probably the biggest (should be in the WGMG thread) annoyance I have at the minute is the upsurge in what I call "one click democracy" - petitions used to take some time and effort and were worthwhile, you had to knock on doors, explain it and then ask for the signature, now you just share it within your own political group online and the masses will sign without even reading it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Unsurprising. How could a national referendum be overturned by an online petition?!? There's an "online petition culture" and it's largely bollocks - strengthening democracy should be the aim instead. There would have been some validity to these arguments about a second referendum or a 60% threshold if they'd been made successfully before the campaign started. You can't move the goalposts after the match has been played! The only one of those arguments with a modicum of validity is the one saying that the referendum was advisory and that our sovereign parliament is entitled to vote it down. Even then, I don't think that would be right - and don't think it'll happen. If there was a chance of parliament doing that, that should have been made clear beforehand. Rightly or wrongly, people assumed that the referendum was binding and were never disabused of that assumption. Anyway, it would require Tory MPs to vote it down and I can't see that happening. Much as I don't like the result, it has to be respected now - and Remainers should concentrate on getting the best possible post-Brexit deal: probably in EEA/EFTA & single market, with freedom of movement but seeking to counteract insecurity in struggling areas by encouraging investment & jobs, improving public services (esp. in areas with high immigration) & prioritising extra funds and action on integration in such areas. Apart from "free movement" which needs to be re-thought I not only agree but would have agreed if the referendum result had been reversed. The reverse result would have highlighted my reservations about democracy but that's the system we operate, for better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Apart from "free movement" which needs to be re-thought I not only agree but would have agreed if the referendum result had been reversed. The reverse result would have highlighted my reservations about democracy but that's the system we operate, for better or worse.Thrac, what's your thoughts on Priti Patel, I know you would!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Only 300,000 of the signatures came from the UK anyway according to the Guardian. Probably the biggest (should be in the WGMG thread) annoyance I have at the minute is the upsurge in what I call "one click democracy" - petitions used to take some time and effort and were worthwhile, you had to knock on doors, explain it and then ask for the signature, now you just share it within your own political group online and the masses will sign without even reading it. That's because most of the signatures were spoofed by bot networks set up by trash like 4chan "for the lulz". Surprised the guardian are reporting on that rather than moaning about it being rejected - I read it in the mornings over a cuppa before starting work and I think I've only seen one column that isn't still firmly against leaving, and that could have been summarised in one line "it'll probably be alright eventually". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry - LCFC Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 'Youth Turnout Almost Twice as High as First Thought' http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/09/young-people-referendum-turnout-brexit-twice-as-high Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 That's because most of the signatures were spoofed by bot networks set up by trash like 4chan "for the lulz". Surprised the guardian are reporting on that rather than moaning about it being rejected - I read it in the mornings over a cuppa before starting work and I think I've only seen one column that isn't still firmly against leaving, and that could have been summarised in one line "it'll probably be alright eventually".Exact, the press new about this, but guess what......they still made a story out of it including the bbc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Thrac, what's your thoughts on Priti Patel, I know you would!!! Haha - I once had a Ugandan Asian girlfriend I thought the world of, so Priti Patel's off to a promising start for all that she could never compete with my friend in a photograph, not even close! . I've never heard Priti speak at length but, assuming no recent change in her outlook, I'd imagine an approval rating around 6/10. I like girls of 44 for a start (and a whole lot of other girls) and mostly liked the no-nonsense common sense of Norman Tebbitt, who she's been compared to. But Priti would lose at least two marks relating to her support of the smoking industry. I loathe cigarettes and the harm they cause to the point where I'll avoid smokers at every opportunity if I possibly can. Priti's another who labels British people as being "idle once they reach the workplace" and I would welcome her putting that insulting remark to the test any time she likes. Or perhaps she'd stand market with me and see whose legs give out first. Her Euro scepticism's a plus, along with her hardline stance on crime (including doing away with prisoner voting) but I'm not comfortable with a return to capital punishment. That said I might be tempted to leave some prisoners' survival in the hands of a greater power just as readily as I'd listen to a convincing argument for an alternative methods of dealing with crime if there was proof they would be more effective. The present penal system doesn't seem to work, either for the community or for the prisoners, but it's much easier to see that than to formulate effective but defensible alternatives. Priti does seem hypocritical (in answering questions about her book) or undecided at times (on gay marriage for a start) and perhaps a bit blinkered in her thinking (on aforementioned crime), but maybe that can be applied to most of us. Prime Minister material? Not for me. Controversy's fine if it's presented with a workable answers to the problems under discussion but, often, the seemingly obvious alternatives have already been tried and failed. So, basically, a potential Prime Minister needs to be both imaginative and convincing if they're to avoid being mocked for being radical. I'm not sure she'd manage that but maybe i need to do more homework on the lady. . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 Exact, the press new about this, but guess what......they still made a story out of it including the bbc From my observations the BBC is often untrustworthy when it comes to politics. They have their own views and promote them in any way they can get away with it. Subtle ways sometimes but no less effective. Singh has noticed this one and I've noticed this and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 9 July 2016 Author Share Posted 9 July 2016 The BBC is scandalously untrustworthy when it comes to politics. They have their own agendas and promote them in any way they can get away with it. Subtle ways sometimes but no less effective. What complete slander! Personal opinion positioned as fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 What complete slander! Personal opinion positioned as fact. They still call Sant Jarnail Singh as a khalistani, he asked for freedom nothing else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thracian Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 What complete slander! Personal opinion positioned as fact. I've modified my comment. But when something blatant occurs again, perhaps I'll remember to highlight it. Not that I think it will change your own view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr The Singh Posted 9 July 2016 Share Posted 9 July 2016 I challenge anyone on this forum and anywhere else where Sant Jarnail.Singh said he wanted to form Khalistan, if so, why the media in the world says he does and call him a terrlrisr Apologies for going off topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 Have the two Conservative leadership candidates said they will call an election an election in October to give the winner a full term to work through the EU negotiations and fallout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 Have the two Conservative leadership candidates said they will call an election an election in October to give the winner a full term to work through the EU negotiations and fallout? Teresa May has said she won't, don't know about A.L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GaelicFox Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 I dread to think what would happen if aliens landed and said to someone 'Take me to your leader' They would not stop long. Claudio would welcome them with open arms Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 Teresa May has said she won't, don't know about A.L. Wouldn't that make more sense as well as giving them a mandate from the public to be leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 PM can't call an election without the consent of 2/3 of Parliament, neither leader can promise anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 PM can't call an election without the consent of 2/3 of Parliament, neither leader can promise anything. They can promise to call for an election. Then parliament votes on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alf Bentley Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 PM can't call an election without the consent of 2/3 of Parliament, neither leader can promise anything. Losing a vote of confidence is the other route under the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act. May or Leadsom could promise to call an immediate vote of confidence and impose a 3-line whip ordering all Tory MPs to vote against..... barring a Tory rebellion & other parties voting that they DID have confidence....guaranteed election! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Guvnor Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 A new general election, what would be the point, there is no opposition and wont be for years, a complete waste of public money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 A new general election, what would be the point, there is no opposition and wont be for years, a complete waste of public money. As I said it's going to take at least 2 years to negotiate the deals concerning the EU and then you really need a couple of years to keep the country stable after the separation. On top of that it looks like the Cons are going to be led by a remain supporter which is not a true reflection of the Country's desires. If it were then Cameron wouldn't have felt obliged to stand down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 10 July 2016 Author Share Posted 10 July 2016 As I said it's going to take at least 2 years to negotiate the deals concerning the EU and then you really need a couple of years to keep the country stable after the separation. On top of that it looks like the Cons are going to be led by a remain supporter which is not a true reflection of the Country's desires. If it were then Cameron wouldn't have felt obliged to stand down. Should we be really framing "a countries desires" on a binary vote where a 1% swing would have taken the result the other way? It could be argued that having a remain supporter lead the exit negotiations best represents all those who voted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 Should we be really framing "a countries desires" on a binary vote where a 1% swing would have taken the result the other way? It could be argued that having a remain supporter lead the exit negotiations best represents all those who voted. Wouldn't that be like having a Labour leader leading the country when there is a small Conservative majority? Leave is leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Barry Hammond Posted 10 July 2016 Author Share Posted 10 July 2016 Wouldn't that be like having a Labour leader leading the country when there is a small Conservative majority? Leave is leave. Except when those on the leave side can't quite agree what leave is supposed to be and may include some form of remaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 July 2016 Share Posted 10 July 2016 Except when those on the leave side can't quite agree what leave is supposed to be and may include some form of remaining? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.