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 ?
We haven't got compulsory voting in this country, although I do think that some of the reasons quoted in the previous post are valid reasons on why people should vote, and that some of the reasons that people give for not voting are pretty weak.
Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform e.g. taxation, compulsory education, jury duty Teaches the benefits of political participation Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate" Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.
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.
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.
You would force people to vote , regardless of whether they agreed with either side .
You are a simple soul aren't you ..it's not as simple as vote leave or remain , it's about what actually happens if you do vote leave . Struggling to understand why you can't grasp the basics of that .
Once again misrepresenting what I have said ..please point out where I've disagreed with that . You won't be able to !
You say you wouldn't blame Theresa Mays weakness as a prime minister for being to partially blame , but then go one to argue that she ruled out 3 possible solutions to the Irish border problem ...pure genius .
You agree that politicians have promised things that were never going to materialise , yet still maintain that not voting is worse than voting for something based on a pack of lies and mistruths.
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 .
Do you think that it is relevant to bring into this argument that he is a failed second tier politician who failed to get a job at home, even if it was true.
If so why do think it is relevant?
Is it true?
If it was true or relevant, why did his Government appoint him, and then extend his contract?
Who do you think has achieved more, a back bench MP, or the Governor of the Bank of England?
Is Jacob Rees-Mogg a failed second tier politician?
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 .
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 .
Why would you think that every vote counts in a General Election, and do you understand the difference between a General Election, and a referendum?
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 .
Why would you think that every vote counts in a General Election, and do you understand the difference between a General Election, and a referendum.
Yes I do , thanks for asking , and playing semantics over phraseology isn't really doing you any favours.
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.
You would force people to vote , regardless of whether they agreed with either side .
In a referendum there are only 2 sides, you cant disagree with both.
You are a simple soul aren't you ..it's not as simple as vote leave or remain , it's about what actually happens if you do vote leave . Struggling to understand why you can't grasp the basics of that .
Because at the time of the referendum none of the complications that we are aware of today were known. It has turned out to be extremely complicated, but at the time it was merely a choice of staying or leaving.
Once again misrepresenting what I have said ..please point out where I've disagreed with that . You won't be able to !
This debate is getting too complicated for you, never mind voting in a referendum.
I said the referendum should not have been left to the general public.
You have said that it was too complicated for you to take part in.
I would therefore assume that you agree with my original premise.
I would say that the fact that you didn't take part, proves that what I said was correct.
How could you argue otherwise?
You then went on to say that if there was a different result I would change my mind on my original statement.
Yet irrespective of the result my reasons wouldn't have changed, nor would the fact that you didn't take part.
You say you wouldn't blame Theresa Mays weakness as a prime minister for being to partially blame , but then go one to argue that she ruled out 3 possible solutions to the Irish border problem ...pure genius .
How does that have anything to do with strength or weakness? It was just silly.
You agree that politicians have promised things that were never going to materialise , yet still maintain that not voting is worse than voting for something based on a pack of lies and mistruths.
Yes but we weren't aware of this at the time. What you are doing is using all the stuff that has happened since as an excuse for not voting. Many people on both sides have not changed their minds since the referendum, despite what has happened since. They made their minds up and have stuck to their guns.
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 .
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.
You would force people to vote , regardless of whether they agreed with either side .
In a referendum there are only 2 sides, you cant disagree with both.
You are a simple soul aren't you ..it's not as simple as vote leave or remain , it's about what actually happens if you do vote leave . Struggling to understand why you can't grasp the basics of that .
Because at the time of the referendum none of the complications that we are aware of today were known. It has turned out to be extremely complicated, but at the time it was merely a choice of staying or leaving.
Once again misrepresenting what I have said ..please point out where I've disagreed with that . You won't be able to !
This debate is getting too complicated for you, never mind voting in a referendum.
I said the referendum should not have been left to the general public.
You have said that it was too complicated for you to take part in.
I would therefore assume that you agree with my original premise.
I would say that the fact that you didn't take part, proves that what I said was correct.
How could you argue otherwise?
You then went on to say that if there was a different result I would change my mind on my original statement.
Yet irrespective of the result my reasons wouldn't have changed, nor would the fact that you didn't take part.
You say you wouldn't blame Theresa Mays weakness as a prime minister for being to partially blame , but then go one to argue that she ruled out 3 possible solutions to the Irish border problem ...pure genius .
How does that have anything to do with strength or weakness? It was just silly.
You agree that politicians have promised things that were never going to materialise , yet still maintain that not voting is worse than voting for something based on a pack of lies and mistruths.
Yes but we weren't aware of this at the time. What you are doing is using all the stuff that has happened since as an excuse for not voting. Many people on both sides have not changed their minds since the referendum, despite what has happened since. They made their minds up and have stuck to their guns.
Not the case at all , you didn't have to be a rocket scientist pre brexit vote , to realise that if you voted leave , then you couldn't be sure what the exact deal was going to be , as if you voted remain , what the potential benefits to the country might be long term .
I think I speak for the Forum (all 10 of us ) when I say that this thread needs fresh ideas. It was bad enough when the 2 of you were attacking 1 another, but now the prospect of the 2 of you getting a room and debating in versus out is too terrible to contemplate!
My thoughts are:-
1. It is rarely a good idea to let the people vote in referenda; 2. The campaign was appalling on both sides, not only with barefaced lies but a total failure to address any of the issues; 3. If economics were the only yardstick, then better to remain, not least because our trade policies have been allied there for the last 45 years; 4. Trade is not the only issue here-we are talking about European Union, not a Common Market; 5. Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken-we have to leave, regardless of my own views. We have always been geographically and economically on the edge of Europe, with a level of mutual distrust. We can debate Norway vs Canada all day, but we have to leave, or democracy just died in our country; 6. There is no time for a second (or more accurately third) vote, just like there is no time for an election or for Lord Snooty to start negotiations all over again; 7. It really is time this country moved on, did a deal whereby May agreed to step down in return for people supporting this agreement, and provide business with legal certainty
Rant over-can always spot a man who just lost DYMs at 1.10/2.20/3.30 when got decent streaks going...
Not the case at all , you didn't have to be a rocket scientist pre brexit vote , to realise that if you voted leave , then you couldn't be sure what the exact deal was going to be , as if you voted remain , what the potential benefits to the country might be long term . </blockquote
With all due respect I think remain voters were those that saw the benefits that EU membership gave us, liked the status quo, and didn't want change.
Where many leave voters did so on the basis of taking back control of our money, borders, and laws, reducing immigration, sovereignty, fishing rights etc etc
I cant remember much talk of what would happen after we left, although there were claims that have turned out to be untrue. Although at the time they were made it was difficult to tell.
I think I speak for the Forum (all 10 of us ) when I say that this thread needs fresh ideas. It was bad enough when the 2 of you were attacking 1 another, but now the prospect of the 2 of you getting a room and debating in versus out is too terrible to contemplate!
My thoughts are:-
1. It is rarely a good idea to let the people vote in referenda; 2. The campaign was appalling on both sides, not only with barefaced lies but a total failure to address any of the issues; 3. If economics were the only yardstick, then better to remain, not least because our trade policies have been allied there for the last 45 years; 4. Trade is not the only issue here-we are talking about European Union, not a Common Market; 5. Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken-we have to leave, regardless of my own views. We have always been geographically and economically on the edge of Europe, with a level of mutual distrust. We can debate Norway vs Canada all day, but we have to leave, or democracy just died in our country; 6. There is no time for a second (or more accurately third) vote, just like there is no time for an election or for Lord Snooty to start negotiations all over again; 7. It really is time this country moved on, did a deal whereby May agreed to step down in return for people supporting this agreement, and provide business with legal certainty
Rant over-can always spot a man who just lost DYMs at 1.10/2.20/3.30 when got decent streaks going...
First agreement of the day .
Second agreement of the day , problem is Haysie would have everyone vote , regardless of this.
We have all read leave politicians and supporters stress it's not just about economics .
Theresa May has pretty much ruled out a " norway style " option .
That still won't stop Haysie from banging his drum , even up to and probably after receiving his telegram .
Comments
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 ?
We haven't got compulsory voting in this country, although I do think that some of the reasons quoted in the previous post are valid reasons on why people should vote, and that some of the reasons that people give for not voting are pretty weak.
Voting is a civic duty comparable to other duties citizens perform e.g. taxation, compulsory education, jury duty
Teaches the benefits of political participation
Parliament reflects more accurately the "will of the electorate"
Governments must consider the total electorate in policy formulation and management
Candidates can concentrate their campaigning energies on issues rather than encouraging voters to attend the poll
The voter isn't actually compelled to vote for anyone because voting is by secret ballot.
You are a simple soul aren't you ..it's not as simple as vote leave or remain , it's about what actually happens if you do vote leave . Struggling to understand why you can't grasp the basics of that .
Once again misrepresenting what I have said ..please point out where I've disagreed with that . You won't be able to !
You say you wouldn't blame Theresa Mays weakness as a prime minister for being to partially blame , but then go one to argue that she ruled out 3 possible solutions to the Irish border problem ...pure genius .
You agree that politicians have promised things that were never going to materialise , yet still maintain that not voting is worse than voting for something based on a pack of lies and mistruths.
I managed to find a photo of @dobiesdraw & @HAYSIE together.
If so why do think it is relevant?
Is it true?
If it was true or relevant, why did his Government appoint him, and then extend his contract?
Who do you think has achieved more, a back bench MP, or the Governor of the Bank of England?
Is Jacob Rees-Mogg a failed second tier politician?
Never been promoted to Government?
Failed in his Coup the other day?
Yes I do , thanks for asking , and playing semantics over phraseology isn't really doing you any favours.
What do you think the difference is then?
If you are unsure , then this should explain it for you >>>https://www.uk-engage.org/2013/05/what-is-the-difference-between-an-election-and-a-referendum/
Too childish a question for me to spend time answering it in my own words .
My thoughts are:-
1. It is rarely a good idea to let the people vote in referenda;
2. The campaign was appalling on both sides, not only with barefaced lies but a total failure to address any of the issues;
3. If economics were the only yardstick, then better to remain, not least because our trade policies have been allied there for the last 45 years;
4. Trade is not the only issue here-we are talking about European Union, not a Common Market;
5. Rightly or wrongly, the people have spoken-we have to leave, regardless of my own views. We have always been geographically and economically on the edge of Europe, with a level of mutual distrust. We can debate Norway vs Canada all day, but we have to leave, or democracy just died in our country;
6. There is no time for a second (or more accurately third) vote, just like there is no time for an election or for Lord Snooty to start negotiations all over again;
7. It really is time this country moved on, did a deal whereby May agreed to step down in return for people supporting this agreement, and provide business with legal certainty
Rant over-can always spot a man who just lost DYMs at 1.10/2.20/3.30 when got decent streaks going...
With all due respect I think remain voters were those that saw the benefits that EU membership gave us, liked the status quo, and didn't want change.
Where many leave voters did so on the basis of taking back control of our money, borders, and laws, reducing immigration, sovereignty, fishing rights etc etc
I cant remember much talk of what would happen after we left, although there were claims that have turned out to be untrue. Although at the time they were made it was difficult to tell.
Second agreement of the day , problem is Haysie would have everyone vote , regardless of this.
We have all read leave politicians and supporters stress it's not just about economics .
Theresa May has pretty much ruled out a " norway style " option .
That still won't stop Haysie from banging his drum , even up to and probably after receiving his telegram .