Another blunder. This refers to not voting in a General Election, rather than a referendum, where every vote counts.
I would like to say nice try, but it wasn't really.
For instance, Jeremy Paxman told the Radio Times, “the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write ‘none of the above’ on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all.”
Not a blunder at all . It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
As we don't have compulsory voting in this country we allow people to put forward the flimsiest excuses for not voting. In Australia those that don't vote get fined. If we adopted this system, I wonder if non voters would stand by their excuses and pay the fines. Or would the threat of a fine assist them in overcoming their excuses. I know what I think.
As we don't have compulsory voting in this country we allow people to put forward the flimsiest excuses for not voting. In Australia those that don't vote get fined. If we adopted this system, I wonder if non voters would stand by their excuses and pay the fines. Or would the threat of a fine assist them in overcoming their excuses. I know what I think.
So in your opinion , just so everyone gets a handle on your mindset , people should be made to vote even if they don't agree with either option and/ or the facts and potential scenarios have not been laid out ? Is this what you think ?
This is slightly concerning, I heard snippets on the radio but haven’t heard the latest, does anyone know the current position ?
The European commission has started to block Britain’s space industry from being involved in manufacturing of the security elements of the satellite programme. The EU says the agreement struck over the terms of the 21-month transition period after Brexit gives it the freedom to do so. The commission has suggested that after Brexit the UK should not be given privileged access to “need-to-know” information about Galileo’s PRS. It has already banned UK representatives from discussions and exchanges pertaining to the post-2019 development of the security aspects of the satellite system.
My question was does anyone know the current position, have things changed since May for instance?( For clarity...The month , not the current prime minister )
Another blunder. This refers to not voting in a General Election, rather than a referendum, where every vote counts.
I would like to say nice try, but it wasn't really.
For instance, Jeremy Paxman told the Radio Times, “the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write ‘none of the above’ on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all.”
Not a blunder at all . It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
Have you even read it. The writer is defending the right not to vote, using an example of a politician that has a substantial majority, and saying that under these circumstances one vote would make no difference. Ignoring the constituencies where very, very small majorities exist. I am not saying I agree with this because there are many cases of very large majorities being overturned. In a referendum every vote counts. It is impossible to not see the difference. The Paxman quote was in the article, and you posted it.
This is slightly concerning, I heard snippets on the radio but haven’t heard the latest, does anyone know the current position ?
The European commission has started to block Britain’s space industry from being involved in manufacturing of the security elements of the satellite programme. The EU says the agreement struck over the terms of the 21-month transition period after Brexit gives it the freedom to do so. The commission has suggested that after Brexit the UK should not be given privileged access to “need-to-know” information about Galileo’s PRS. It has already banned UK representatives from discussions and exchanges pertaining to the post-2019 development of the security aspects of the satellite system.
My question was does anyone know the current position, have things changed since May for instance?( For clarity...The month , not the current prime minister )
My apologies , perhaps one of the MANY people who contribute to this thread , will answer your question
I like the Australian System where everyone is made to vote or receive fine. I welcome second peoples vote, think the way EU have treated us (with contempt) will result in landslide leave. Trouble is Haysie will still be banging on about it. sigh!
'Real opportunity' Conservative MP and Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Mark Carney of talking down the pound on Wednesday, saying the Bank of England's warnings tonight "lack all credibility".
Mr Rees-Mogg said "project fear" had become "project hysteria".
"The overwhelming majority - 87% - of British companies do not trade with the European Union," he said.
"It will not have an effect on them. Leaving the European Union is a real economic opportunity and it's an opportunity that neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury in its forecasts wishes to recognise," Mr Rees-Mogg added
What do you think?
I'm more interested in what other people, besides you and your small fan base, think actually
'Real opportunity' Conservative MP and Brexiter Jacob Rees-Mogg accused Mark Carney of talking down the pound on Wednesday, saying the Bank of England's warnings tonight "lack all credibility".
Mr Rees-Mogg said "project fear" had become "project hysteria".
"The overwhelming majority - 87% - of British companies do not trade with the European Union," he said.
"It will not have an effect on them. Leaving the European Union is a real economic opportunity and it's an opportunity that neither the Bank of England nor the Treasury in its forecasts wishes to recognise," Mr Rees-Mogg added
What do you think?
I'm more interested in what other people, besides you and your small fan base, think actually
If anyone who voted leave , knew at the time what sort of deal Theresa may was going to be offered and the realistic chance of there being a no deal , would they still have voted leave ? Obviously we won't get much if any of a response on here , because a) haysies attitude has frightened off the leave brigade from making any arguments and b) This is a poker forum , with quite a limited user base and not a political forum .
So your point is?
I'm not making a point regarding the leave vote , it's a question ...see the question mark at the end ? The point about lack of response on here from leave voters is clear for anyone to grasp
You said earlier that you intended to put their point of view.
Another blunder. This refers to not voting in a General Election, rather than a referendum, where every vote counts.
I would like to say nice try, but it wasn't really.
For instance, Jeremy Paxman told the Radio Times, “the person who chooses not to vote – cannot even be bothered to write ‘none of the above’ on a ballot paper – disqualifies himself from passing any comment at all.”
Not a blunder at all . It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
Have you even read it. The writer is defending the right not to vote, using an example of a politician that has a substantial majority, and saying that under these circumstances one vote would make no difference. Ignoring the constituencies where very, very small majorities exist. I am not saying I agree with this because there are many cases of very large majorities being overturned. In a referendum every vote counts. It is impossible to not see the difference. The Paxman quote was in the article, and you posted it.
Yes and the example is irrelevant !
So you are now saying that not every vote in a general election counts , this gets better and better .
Jacob Rees-Mogg calls Mark Carney a 'failed-second tier politician' Jacob Rees-Mogg has launched a personal attack on the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, saying he should not have been in the post for some time.
He told BBC News that Mr Carney was a “second-tier Canadian politician” who "failed" to get a job at home.
Sounds pretty accurate to me .
Why would you say that it sounds accurate?
Why do you think it's not ?
The Government has just extended his contract, so you must assume they think that he has done, and is doing a good job. Much of the above is therefore irrelevant, even if true. Jacob Rees-Mogg shouldn't personalise his argument, and is clearly shooting the messenger.
Why would the fact that you couldn't be bothered to vote, have anything to do with my self importance. Why would my loss off the moral high ground absolve you of any responsibility. The fact that you don't care what people think of you is very fortunate. Which of your posts do you consider to be the best, and deserving of praise?
Who said it did ? laughs at the " couldn't be bothered to vote " ..My clear reasons for not have already been stated numerous times and they certainly don't include apathy , but carry on misrepresenting .
How do you think the 72% of the electorate that voted, differed from you.
Who said it did ?
You seem to think that saying it was too complicated for you, is a valid excuse.
Fortunate for who ?
For you, if you did you might be disappointed.
Not interested .
I could tell.
Now you try answering some questions , I can play your very silly game until the cows come home !
Why would the fact that you couldn't be bothered to vote, have anything to do with my self importance. Why would my loss off the moral high ground absolve you of any responsibility. The fact that you don't care what people think of you is very fortunate. Which of your posts do you consider to be the best, and deserving of praise?
Who said it did ? laughs at the " couldn't be bothered to vote " ..My clear reasons for not have already been stated numerous times and they certainly don't include apathy , but carry on misrepresenting .
How do you think the 72% of the electorate that voted, differed from you.
Who said it did ?
You seem to think that saying it was too complicated for you, is a valid excuse.
Fortunate for who ?
For you, if you did you might be disappointed.
Not interested .
I could tell.
Now you try answering some questions , I can play your very silly game until the cows come home !
Maybe the people that voted were clear in their own minds exactly what they were voting for .
It's an extremely valid reason to not vote , if you can't make up your mind which is the right thing to do . Do you think people should vote if they are not clear in their own minds about the ramifications of voting a particular way ?
Disappointed about peoples views of me ? I will be 65 in December , I could care less what people think of my opinions on a forum .
Jacob Rees-Mogg calls Mark Carney a 'failed-second tier politician' Jacob Rees-Mogg has launched a personal attack on the Bank of England Governor Mark Carney, saying he should not have been in the post for some time.
He told BBC News that Mr Carney was a “second-tier Canadian politician” who "failed" to get a job at home.
Sounds pretty accurate to me .
Why would you say that it sounds accurate?
Why do you think it's not ?
The Government has just extended his contract, so you must assume they think that he has done, and is doing a good job. Much of the above is therefore irrelevant, even if true. Jacob Rees-Mogg shouldn't personalise his argument, and is clearly shooting the messenger.
Who are you to say he shouldn't personalise his argument ...now if he called someone a moron then perhaps so .
Jacob Rees-Mogg is a self styled Little Lord Fauntleroy. The only place you would be happy meeting him would be on the opposing side at rugby. Just my view of course.
I like the Australian System where everyone is made to vote or receive fine. I welcome second peoples vote, think the way EU have treated us (with contempt) will result in landslide leave. Trouble is Haysie will still be banging on about it. sigh!
Can you clarify how the EU have treated us with contempt?
Ridiculous question , because we will never be in a situation where nobody votes.
We would if everyone was like you.
You mean invalid , because I didn't vote remain like you ? Invalid because I wasn't prepared to make a decision based on lies /misrepresentation and a lack of information ?
Much of the information that we are now aware of was not available at the time of the referendum.
For Gods sake the referendum merely asked us if we thought it was better to stay in or leave the EU. It was nothing to do with brain surgery or rocket science. Yes or no, stay or leave, how difficult was that. All the complications have arisen since the referendum, and nobody had knowledge of them at the time.
How do you think other people were able to do it? Yes or no, stay or leave. No its too complex for me.
Most people would have had a view on this before the referendum. Many people would have listened the opposing arguments and made a decision. Rightly or wrongly, Not just said I cant do it. No I cant do it.
Once again , you LIE about what I've said ..please back that statement up , with proof that i said that !
You need to try to keep up. You asked me about the reasons behind a post I made saying that this issue was not suitable for a referendum. I gave my reasons in detail. You don't appear to have understood them. You have argued that the issue was too complex for you to take part in, which surely supports my argument, that there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place
You then argue that if the result was different, I would change my view on whether we should have had the referendum. I would have preferred a different result, but my reasons for saying it was a bad idea still stand. As no doubt will your reasons for maintaining that it was too complex an issue for you to vote in.
We are in the situation we are today regarding Brexit , because a) whether you like it or not , the majority of the vote was for leave and b) Theres a good argument for the prime minister being too weak too garnish a decent deal for us .
I cant disagree with the blatantly obvious. I wouldn't agree with the Prime Ministers weakness playing a part, although the negotiations have been conducted badly. For instance there have always been three logical solutions to the Irish border problem, and she ruled them all out on day one, before spending two years failing to think of an acceptable alternative. The biggest problem is that what many politicians promised would be available to us were never going to materialise. The EU is a rules based organisation, we helped make the rules. They were never going to break their rules to make us happy. The four freedoms are indivisible and that will not change.
Comments
It highlights not voting as a general principle whether its a general election or a referendum , makes no difference . Paxman devotee , explains a lot !
In Australia those that don't vote get fined.
If we adopted this system, I wonder if non voters would stand by their excuses and pay the fines.
Or would the threat of a fine assist them in overcoming their excuses.
I know what I think.
The writer is defending the right not to vote, using an example of a politician that has a substantial majority, and saying that under these circumstances one vote would make no difference. Ignoring the constituencies where very, very small majorities exist.
I am not saying I agree with this because there are many cases of very large majorities being overturned.
In a referendum every vote counts.
It is impossible to not see the difference.
The Paxman quote was in the article, and you posted it.
So you are now saying that not every vote in a general election counts , this gets better and better .
Much of the above is therefore irrelevant, even if true.
Jacob Rees-Mogg shouldn't personalise his argument, and is clearly shooting the messenger.
It's an extremely valid reason to not vote , if you can't make up your mind which is the right thing to do . Do you think people should vote if they are not clear in their own minds about the ramifications of voting a particular way ?
Disappointed about peoples views of me ? I will be 65 in December , I could care less what people think of my opinions on a forum .
Just my view of course.
Ridiculous question , because we will never be in a situation where nobody votes.
We would if everyone was like you.
You mean invalid , because I didn't vote remain like you ? Invalid because I wasn't prepared to make a decision based on lies /misrepresentation and a lack of information ?
Much of the information that we are now aware of was not available at the time of the referendum.
For Gods sake the referendum merely asked us if we thought it was better to stay in or leave the EU. It was nothing to do with brain surgery or rocket science. Yes or no, stay or leave, how difficult was that. All the complications have arisen since the referendum, and nobody had knowledge of them at the time.
How do you think other people were able to do it? Yes or no, stay or leave. No its too complex for me.
Most people would have had a view on this before the referendum. Many people would have listened the opposing arguments and made a decision. Rightly or wrongly, Not just said I cant do it. No I cant do it.
Once again , you LIE about what I've said ..please back that statement up , with proof that i said that !
You need to try to keep up. You asked me about the reasons behind a post I made saying that this issue was not suitable for a referendum. I gave my reasons in detail. You don't appear to have understood them.
You have argued that the issue was too complex for you to take part in, which surely supports my argument, that there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place
You then argue that if the result was different, I would change my view on whether we should have had the referendum. I would have preferred a different result, but my reasons for saying it was a bad idea still stand. As no doubt will your reasons for maintaining that it was too complex an issue for you to vote in.
We are in the situation we are today regarding Brexit , because a) whether you like it or not , the majority of the vote was for leave and b) Theres a good argument for the prime minister being too weak too garnish a decent deal for us .
I cant disagree with the blatantly obvious.
I wouldn't agree with the Prime Ministers weakness playing a part, although the negotiations have been conducted badly. For instance there have always been three logical solutions to the Irish border problem, and she ruled them all out on day one, before spending two years failing to think of an acceptable alternative.
The biggest problem is that what many politicians promised would be available to us were never going to materialise.
The EU is a rules based organisation, we helped make the rules. They were never going to break their rules to make us happy.
The four freedoms are indivisible and that will not change.