If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
PM's 'end-game' Despite the baby celebrations, the prime minister's troubles still receive plenty of coverage. Matt's cartoon in the Telegraph depicts a TV correspondent at Windsor reporting: "Baby Archie is 7th in line to the throne and 5th favourite to replace Mrs May." In its leader comment, it suggests many Conservative backbenchers shared the sentiment of Andrea Jenkyns, who called on her leader to resign during Prime Minister's Questions. The i suggests a disastrous showing in the European elections could spell the end of her premiership. A cabinet minister told the Mail: "This feel like the end-game. The walls are closing in on her."
And finally the Telegraph reports that sheep have been enrolled at a primary school in France. The unusual measure was taken in the Alpine town of Crets to boost pupil numbers to stop the school being closed. The i says the creatures were signed onto the register with names such as Baa-bete (baa beast) and Saute-Mouton (jumping sheep).
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
If we follow that logic, we could of vote every 15 minutes just to check the will of the people is still the will of the people.
Bit of a difference between 15 mins and 3 years mumsie. If you can honestly tell me that the info the people had in 2016 and now is the same then I wouldnt argue with you.
This from the Guardian , addresses it more eloquently than my tired mind will allow tonight :
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum. Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions. This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer. A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
I am confused by the fact that you have posted this. You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote. Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing. You cant have it both ways. As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available. Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with. Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Please knock yourself out and show me where I typed the bolded bit .
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions . You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
dobiesdraw Posts: 2,555Member September 2018 Personally I hope Brexit happens quickly , if only so you can move swiftly on to your next obsession , because this one like the last couple is boring me to tears ! Incidentally , why the **** is this in poker chat and not with the rest of the drivel in the rail ?
Apology accepted ...now get a life !
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country . You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable . As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
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 .
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 ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes 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 !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes 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.
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 ?
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 .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
The above is laughable . You made a big thing about lambasting me and others for not voting , now you want to effectively say , that really noone has been informed enough or misinformed so now we need to have another vote . Do you have a big plastic red nose and wear oversized shoes ?
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
The above is laughable . You made a big thing about lambasting me and others for not voting , now you want to effectively say , that really noone has been informed enough or misinformed so now we need to have another vote . Do you have a big plastic red nose and wear oversized shoes ?
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
You have lost track of how we got here.
You do this quite consistently.
You posted an article which inferred that everyone knew what they were doing when it came to the referendum.
Yet many of your previous posts supported the fact that you didn't think that was the case.
Particularly as far as you were concerned.
You have been reluctant to lay out what you think that the 34 million people that voted had as an advantage over you.
Whether they were cleverer, or put more effort into researching the relevant information.
The fact that you appear to think you have become a Brexit expert in the intervening period, only makes your position more difficult to comprehend.
When a second referendum is discussed, you lecture about democracy, yet those that choose not to vote, are clearly not exercising their democratic right.
This is the point I was making.
I was merely making the point that leave voters couldn't possibly have known what they were voting for at the time of the referendum, because we still don't know what we are going to get.
Obviously the remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for, as nothing would have changed.
I don't think you have quite grasped it.
What is the point of being proud to live in a democracy, and not voting. This applies more to a referendum, and EU Elections than a General Election. In a referendum, or EU Election every vote counts, but in a General Election, you could argue that if the sitting MP has a large majority, then it may be seen as unlikely that your one vote would change anything.
I don't think you grasped this either.
I believe that anyone that living in a democracy has a responsibility to vote. I also think that if the Government removed our right to vote, those that would shout the loudest would be the non voters.
I also think that many Politicians, and members of the public, are prepared to dismiss another referendum out of hand, yet when asked for an alternative solution, have nothing to say.
You are a member of the general public.
So just to be clear this was about an article that you posted. I am not sure that you read or understand many of the articles you post.
Many voters will feel misled over the referendum campaign. Boris Johnson is due in court over his lies. The leave campaign has been fined by the Electoral Commission, and face a police investigation.
Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith.
Only a person that didn't have a clue could make this comment.
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
"Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith."
So you keep saying , and come 23rd May , people will turn out again , in what has become effectively another affirmation of that original vote, in the guise of the european elections . Once again , the tide of public opinion will be on the leave side .
"Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith."
So you keep saying , and come 23rd May , people will turn out again , in what has become effectively another affirmation of that original vote, in the guise of the european elections . Once again , the tide of public opinion will be on the leave side .
Newspaper headlines: Is cross-party Brexit deal '99% done'?
The Daily Telegraph reports that Theresa May has held secret discussions with aides and ministers over another EU referendum. It would offer a choice of a Brexit deal, a no deal scenario or remain. Sources say it would only become relevant if talks with Labour collapse and Parliament forced a fresh public vote. The Guardian says Jeremy Corbyn will not be able to get enough of his MPs to back a Brexit deal for it to pass through the Commons unless he promises a second referendum. Party sources tell the paper two-thirds of Labour MPs would insist on such a condition.
Brexit: Corbyn says new referendum could be ‘healing process’ at European election campaign launch Labour leader also accuses Theresa May of making ‘no big offer’ in cross-party Brexit talks
A second referendum could be a “healing process” that brings the Brexit process to a conclusion, Jeremy Corbyn has claimed as he launched Labour’s manifesto for the European election. The Labour leader’s remarks follow months of considerable pressure – from both pro-EU Labour MPs and members – for the party to unequivocally support a Final Say vote on any Brexit deal.
Calls were also intensified in the wake of last week’s disappointing local election results for the party, with MPs urging the Labour leadership to stop sitting on the fence over the issue of a second referendum.
September 2018 Personally I hope Brexit happens quickly , if only so you can move swiftly on to your next obsession , because this one like the last couple is boring me to tears ! Incidentally , why the **** is this in poker chat and not with the rest of the drivel in the rail ?
Apology accepted ...now get a life !
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country . You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable . As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
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 .
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 ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes 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 !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes 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.
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 ?
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 .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
So does that mean that you don't think anyone should have voted to leave?
A number of websites report that analysis for the Labour Party carried out by the pollsters, Survation, has rejected suggestions of a significant Brexit backlash in last week's council elections in England. According to the Spectator, a comparison of the results with those from the 2016 referendum in local authority areas found that although Labour did a little worse in places that voted Leave than voted Remain, Brexit was not of huge importance to a person's likelihood to vote Labour. The LabourList website says the findings suggest that Labour's Brexit position of "constructive ambiguity" is not as harmful electorally as some MPs and commentators assume.
The above is laughable . You made a big thing about lambasting me and others for not voting , now you want to effectively say , that really noone has been informed enough or misinformed so now we need to have another vote . Do you have a big plastic red nose and wear oversized shoes ?
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
You have lost track of how we got here.
You do this quite consistently.
You posted an article which inferred that everyone knew what they were doing when it came to the referendum.
Yet many of your previous posts supported the fact that you didn't think that was the case.
Particularly as far as you were concerned.
You have been reluctant to lay out what you think that the 34 million people that voted had as an advantage over you.
Whether they were cleverer, or put more effort into researching the relevant information.
The fact that you appear to think you have become a Brexit expert in the intervening period, only makes your position more difficult to comprehend.
When a second referendum is discussed, you lecture about democracy, yet those that choose not to vote, are clearly not exercising their democratic right.
This is the point I was making.
I was merely making the point that leave voters couldn't possibly have known what they were voting for at the time of the referendum, because we still don't know what we are going to get.
Obviously the remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for, as nothing would have changed.
I don't think you have quite grasped it.
What is the point of being proud to live in a democracy, and not voting. This applies more to a referendum, and EU Elections than a General Election. In a referendum, or EU Election every vote counts, but in a General Election, you could argue that if the sitting MP has a large majority, then it may be seen as unlikely that your one vote would change anything.
I don't think you grasped this either.
I believe that anyone that living in a democracy has a responsibility to vote. I also think that if the Government removed our right to vote, those that would shout the loudest would be the non voters.
I also think that many Politicians, and members of the public, are prepared to dismiss another referendum out of hand, yet when asked for an alternative solution, have nothing to say.
You are a member of the general public.
So just to be clear this was about an article that you posted. I am not sure that you read or understand many of the articles you post.
Many voters will feel misled over the referendum campaign. Boris Johnson is due in court over his lies. The leave campaign has been fined by the Electoral Commission, and face a police investigation.
Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith.
Only a person that didn't have a clue could make this comment.
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
Your usual mo is to take a load of text, highlight a small piece of it, then disagree with the highlighted bit, without usually providing any reason for the disagreement. Just oh no it isn't. I think that you ignore the bulk because you are unable to provide any answers or real opinions on it.
Your one sentence reply on this occasion shows how ill informed you are.
That is exactly what I am saying, the only people that didn't know what they were voting for, were leave voters, obviously.
Remain voters were voting for the status quo, to carry on as we were, no change.
Therefore, your response is not at all funny, it is pretty sad really, to show that level of comprehension.
Comments
For the House of Commons to endorse a second referendum, it would have to repeal past Brexit legislation in a manner that flouts the position adopted by the main parties in the last general election. Were this to happen, it would tear up established relations between executive and legislature, pitting popular and parliamentary sovereignty against one another. Parliament would in effect be seeking, in a Brechtian fashion, to dissolve “the people” and put another in place that will vote differently in a second referendum.
Why should it not be possible to change one’s mind in a democracy? Of course it should be, but calls for a second referendum have very little to do with a changing of minds and more to do with a hardening of views. What lies behind the call for another vote is a belief that those who voted to leave in June 2016 should change their minds. The fact that its supporters call it “the people’s vote”, as if the first vote wasn’t, lets the cat out of the bag. Driving the desire to have a second vote is a firm belief that the first one was an illegitimate act, a subversion of democratic politics that saw a leave victory achieved through a mix of lies and misconceptions.
This is what the second referendum campaigners hang their arguments on, so it merits some scrutiny. At the heart of it is an epistemic claim: people did not understand what was at stake and now that they do, we should give them a chance to vote differently. Instead of basing our political system on two fundamental principles – equal political rights (for those over 18) and majority rule – this claim introduces a new element, knowledge. It presumes that people who voted leave first time around were ignorant or misguided, or both. It also suggests that one’s right to act politically rests in part upon one’s ability to be informed about the issues in question.
Who can determine whether people are well enough informed to allow a result to pass? Do advocates of this kind of knowledge-based democracy accept that access to knowledge is fundamentally shaped by social and economic power? Thus organised, we divide our political world into those who know and those who do not. Or, more truthfully, between those who are sure that they know and those who are not so sure. This is a subjective difference, requiring an arbiter to draw the line. As things stand, the only arbiters at present are MPs themselves, who we know are made up predominantly of remainers. Would we instead create an independent body, made up of the great and the good, empowered to decide on the cognitive capacities of voters? I imagine not, but the elitism underpinning arguments for a second referendum couldn’t be clearer.
A second referendum would be a blow to the heart of our parliamentary democracy. It would introduce the principle – elitist to the core – that the legitimacy of a political decision rests upon a judgment about the knowledge that informed it. And it would rely on a dirty plebiscitarianism as a way out of the political impasse in Westminster. Those arguing for a second referendum should be careful what they wish for. Chaos is rarely a harbinger of good outcomes
PM's 'end-game'
Despite the baby celebrations, the prime minister's troubles still receive plenty of coverage.
Matt's cartoon in the Telegraph depicts a TV correspondent at Windsor reporting: "Baby Archie is 7th in line to the throne and 5th favourite to replace Mrs May."
In its leader comment, it suggests many Conservative backbenchers shared the sentiment of Andrea Jenkyns, who called on her leader to resign during Prime Minister's Questions.
The i suggests a disastrous showing in the European elections could spell the end of her premiership. A cabinet minister told the Mail: "This feel like the end-game. The walls are closing in on her."
And finally the Telegraph reports that sheep have been enrolled at a primary school in France.
The unusual measure was taken in the Alpine town of Crets to boost pupil numbers to stop the school being closed.
The i says the creatures were signed onto the register with names such as Baa-bete (baa beast) and Saute-Mouton (jumping sheep).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48209607
You stated very clearly, much earlier in this thread that the misleading claims made in the referendum campaign, left you unable to vote.
Now you post an article claiming that everyone knew what they were doing.
You cant have it both ways.
As I have said a number of times previously, there are a number of Brexit varieties available.
Three years later we still don't know which one we will end up with.
Leave voters that support a Common Market 2.0 solution, will be hostile to a no deal outcome.
As the result has not been decided, how could any leave voter claim that they knew what they were voting for?
Secondly , you can twist the words of the article as much you like , but rational people will read it and form their own conclusions .
You pretty much found your level when you decided to post a succession of crude , immature pe nis pictures , so why anyone would take anything you have to say as being considered is beyond me .
You obviously constantly change your mind.
dobiesdraw Posts: 2,555Member
September 2018
Personally I hope Brexit happens quickly , if only so you can move swiftly on to your next obsession , because this one like the last couple is boring me to tears ! Incidentally , why the **** is this in poker chat and not with the rest of the drivel in the rail ?
Apology accepted ...now get a life !
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country .
You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable .
As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
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 .
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 ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes
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 !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes
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.
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 ?
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 .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
You made a big thing about lambasting me and others for not voting , now you want to effectively say , that really noone has been informed enough or misinformed so now we need to have another vote .
Do you have a big plastic red nose and wear oversized shoes ?
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
You do this quite consistently.
You posted an article which inferred that everyone knew what they were doing when it came to the referendum.
Yet many of your previous posts supported the fact that you didn't think that was the case.
Particularly as far as you were concerned.
You have been reluctant to lay out what you think that the 34 million people that voted had as an advantage over you.
Whether they were cleverer, or put more effort into researching the relevant information.
The fact that you appear to think you have become a Brexit expert in the intervening period, only makes your position more difficult to comprehend.
When a second referendum is discussed, you lecture about democracy, yet those that choose not to vote, are clearly not exercising their democratic right.
This is the point I was making.
I was merely making the point that leave voters couldn't possibly have known what they were voting for at the time of the referendum, because we still don't know what we are going to get.
Obviously the remain voters knew exactly what they were voting for, as nothing would have changed.
I don't think you have quite grasped it.
What is the point of being proud to live in a democracy, and not voting. This applies more to a referendum, and EU Elections than a General Election. In a referendum, or EU Election every vote counts, but in a General Election, you could argue that if the sitting MP has a large majority, then it may be seen as unlikely that your one vote would change anything.
I don't think you grasped this either.
I believe that anyone that living in a democracy has a responsibility to vote. I also think that if the Government removed our right to vote, those that would shout the loudest would be the non voters.
I also think that many Politicians, and members of the public, are prepared to dismiss another referendum out of hand, yet when asked for an alternative solution, have nothing to say.
You are a member of the general public.
So just to be clear this was about an article that you posted. I am not sure that you read or understand many of the articles you post.
Many voters will feel misled over the referendum campaign. Boris Johnson is due in court over his lies. The leave campaign has been fined by the Electoral Commission, and face a police investigation.
Despite subsequently finding out that they had been misled, many voted in good faith.
Only a person that didn't have a clue could make this comment.
Or are the only people who didn't know what they were voting for , were the leave voters ? ...Too funny you are , sometimes !
So you keep saying , and come 23rd May , people will turn out again , in what has become effectively another affirmation of that original vote, in the guise of the european elections .
Once again , the tide of public opinion will be on the leave side .
The Daily Telegraph reports that Theresa May has held secret discussions with aides and ministers over another EU referendum.
It would offer a choice of a Brexit deal, a no deal scenario or remain.
Sources say it would only become relevant if talks with Labour collapse and Parliament forced a fresh public vote.
The Guardian says Jeremy Corbyn will not be able to get enough of his MPs to back a Brexit deal for it to pass through the Commons unless he promises a second referendum.
Party sources tell the paper two-thirds of Labour MPs would insist on such a condition.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48172429
Brexit: Corbyn says new referendum could be ‘healing process’ at European election campaign launch
Labour leader also accuses Theresa May of making ‘no big offer’ in cross-party Brexit talks
A second referendum could be a “healing process” that brings the Brexit process to a conclusion, Jeremy Corbyn has claimed as he launched Labour’s manifesto for the European election.
The Labour leader’s remarks follow months of considerable pressure – from both pro-EU Labour MPs and members – for the party to unequivocally support a Final Say vote on any Brexit deal.
Calls were also intensified in the wake of last week’s disappointing local election results for the party, with MPs urging the Labour leadership to stop sitting on the fence over the issue of a second referendum.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/corbyn-brexit-second-referendum-labour-manifesto-european-elections-a8906351.html
You obviously constantly change your mind.
September 2018
Personally I hope Brexit happens quickly , if only so you can move swiftly on to your next obsession , because this one like the last couple is boring me to tears ! Incidentally , why the **** is this in poker chat and not with the rest of the drivel in the rail ?
Apology accepted ...now get a life !
You should probably stay away from guessing , I actually refrained from voting simply because whatever anyone said from either side , I wasn't sure how it would affect us . Please feel free to carry on with your assumptions !
Umm, where have I suggested that ?. I think you need to brush up on your reading skills . I have already confirmed that I didn't vote , because it was and still is impossible to say whether in the years to come , brexit will be a good or bad thing for our country .
You are arrogant , because you are not prepared to hear opposing viewpoints to yours , without " shouting " them down and dismissing them as nonsense . I'm quite prepared to listen to both sides of the argument for Brexit , that is not evident on this thread and isn't likely to be !
The reason I didnt vote , was simply because I couldn't be sure of making the right decision , based on the arguments put forward from both sides ..i'd say that was the responsible thing to do !
I would suggest that you are slightly contradicting yourself. Perhaps you would like to clarify , are you happy for people to have had the vote regardless of spin , misinformation and lies from BOTH sides or do you back up the highlighted comment of yours at the top ?
Perfectly calm here , and i would suggest in future if you are genuinely asking a question , put a question mark after it ! If it is a question , I never said I didn't have views on Brexit , just that it is way too complicated an issue with too many variables to express a view and substantiate it . For those reasons , I would decline a 2nd vote as well ( not that imo that will ever happen anyway ).
You can't stand by both of your statements , it's contradictory ! Completely laughable .
As far as not having any sympathy with people exercising their democratic right to abstain from voting , for **** good reasons is bizarre . No one knew exactly what sort of deal was going to be brokered , it's akin to asking someone to form an opinion on the basis that several options are going to happen , but we can't guarantee which one .
I didn't give an explanation of democratic rights , I merely stated that it is a democratic right to choose not to vote . 72 % of the U.K. also followed suit .
Semantics regarding the fact that you weren't asked to specify which deal you got ..people were invited to vote , not knowing exactly what was going to be on the table , thats the cold hard truth of the matter .
As for the other part , once again , you are trying your level best to put words in my mouth ( seems to be your m.o. ) and failing .
If the vote had been in favour of no deal , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't have been offered .
I will reply to this later, it makes absolutely no sense and supports my last post.
That was me not paying attention to what I was typing as opposed to anything else ..but well done for picking it up.
When someone makes the same point over and over like i have , and still someone wants to question its validity , either a) they are dense or b) just being argumentative for the sake of it ..choose your option .... ..the question was asked and different arguments and outcomes were put forward to enable voters to make an informed decision . The arguments and misrepresentation from BOTH sides made it impossible for me to make my mind up .
You are , and perhaps you would like to tell me , exactly how democratic a country we would have if we forced our people to vote , even if they weren't really sure what they were voting for , and how that would impact on life changing moments like the brexit vote . If we had compulsory voting , the leave vote would have been higher .
What I meant to type was " remain" .....if the vote had been remain , you wouldn't even be saying the referendum shouldn't be offered .
Makes no sense
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 .
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 ?
HAYSIE said:
» show previous quotes
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 !
dobiesdraw said:
» show previous quotes
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.
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 ?
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 .
And therein lies one of the main issues , why it was difficult to cast an informed vote .
Full of questions , but don't want to answer any !
In the other, Dobiesdraw, who has better things to do than give her own opinions, doesn't appear to be sure, but is sure that Haysie is wrong. Our forum has its very own Jeremy Corbyn....
Everyone was expected to vote in the referendum using the knowledge that they had at the time.
The reason that there is an outcry from some quarters now, is because anyone that has paid attention to what has happened since, has a much greater knowledge now.
Mind numbingly stupid example . It was the responsibilty of politicians to present realistic scenarios and accurately represent consequences to the country pre vote . They failed to do that . If you are saying that wasn't possible , then the referendum should never have been offered up.
Totally disagree ...it would be and is irresponsible to vote uninformed about the consequences .
So does that mean that you don't think anyone should have voted to leave?
A number of websites report that analysis for the Labour Party carried out by the pollsters, Survation, has rejected suggestions of a significant Brexit backlash in last week's council elections in England.
According to the Spectator, a comparison of the results with those from the 2016 referendum in local authority areas found that although Labour did a little worse in places that voted Leave than voted Remain, Brexit was not of huge importance to a person's likelihood to vote Labour.
The LabourList website says the findings suggest that Labour's Brexit position of "constructive ambiguity" is not as harmful electorally as some MPs and commentators assume.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-48222587
I think that you ignore the bulk because you are unable to provide any answers or real opinions on it.
Your one sentence reply on this occasion shows how ill informed you are.
That is exactly what I am saying, the only people that didn't know what they were voting for, were leave voters, obviously.
Remain voters were voting for the status quo, to carry on as we were, no change.
Therefore, your response is not at all funny, it is pretty sad really, to show that level of comprehension.