BS: Brexit again

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:13 AM

The fact remains that, in many circles, both tree hugging and do gooding are used as terms of abuse so they seem to have succumbed to newspeak, which rather than being decided by a totalitarian state, is being devised by the popular press.

The point about fracking is not so much about where it will happen but the simple fact that it is being forced through, against the will of many people, bypassing the very democracy that we seem to be discussing. Adding insult to injury, even though it seems to be a very bad idea in many ways, we are being told it is for our own good.

It appears that it will be of most benefit to those doing the fracking and those approving it to me and so 'the good of society' also seems to have become newspeak for 'lining the pockets of the rich'. But, as I have said before, I am a cynic when it comes to politicians and I am drifting too far from the point of this thread.

One final point on our so called democracy. When you have Conservative neoliberal policies and Labour neoliberal policies that both benefit the super rich and are difficult to insert a cigarette paper between it is little wonder that people use either a protest vote or do not vote at all. The time for voting for the lesser of two evils must be replaced by a better option if we are to survive.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:47 AM

Perhaps another thread on democracy is required. We are allowed to vote for the candidates but in reality who selects them and parades them before us?
Is it deep state, puppet masters, or our own stupidity?
To reclaim democracy we need to reclaim candidate selection.
Do we want or need professional politicians? Is their function to serve
those that elected them, the party whips, or the hordes of vampires (lobbyists) employed by the military industrial complex?
For politicians we need men of honour - instead we get snake oil salesmen and grubby little men that can be bought.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 06:48 AM

So, Iains, if I don't vote in this democracy of ours, in which voting is voluntary, I somehow need to shut up and have no cause for complaint, etc., eh, when things go wrong, or stand by when I'm accused of "not being arsed?"

Well, a couple of things. First, no-one has the right to know why I didn't vote. Suppose I just couldn't decide. Suppose I thought that none of the candidates were worthy of office. How would you know? What justification would you have for assuming that I simply hadn't been arsed? And why are those kinds of decisions any less honourable than voting for someone I'd be extremely reluctant see in office? I actually think that it's far more honourable to not vote because you admit that you don't understand politics. An awful lot of people who do vote don't have a clue about politics. In a democracy, that should worry us, big-time.

Next, the money that the government spends comes from the taxes, equally, of people who vote and people who don't vote. I have no choice but to pay that tax (though some multimillionaires seem to have a choice). I think that gives me exactly the same right to whinge, moan and hold the government to account whether I voted for them, against them or not at all. Absolutely no-one has the right to criticise non-voters or to make unjustifiable assumptions as to why they didn't.

As for The Guardian being the repository for softie sandal-wearing liberal treehugging pinkos, etc., you are simply demonstrating your ignorance. Unlike the tabloids, the Guardian does not mix news reporting with comment. The Guardian fearlessly invites contributors from the full range of the political spectrum, including occasionally one or two who I regard as detestable scumbags. There's a lot wrong with the Guardian. But you really should read it some time instead of ignorantly parading your prejudices. If you want to live in a real fantasy world, read the Mail (maybe you already do). And I do read the Mail fairly frequently, when I can pick up a free copy. I do have to hold my nose.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 07:08 AM

Steve Shaw

I always skim the Guardian along with multiple other online sources.
Unfortunately all MSM have an agenda and the first casualty is truth.
Having seen news events unfold first hand a few times and seen the subsequent news coverage, I am left wondering if the events occurred on the same planet. Therefore I have a very low confidence level in anything reported unless the main gist of it is supported from both sides of the spectrum and that is a rare event. You have your views on the world as portrayed by the Gruniard and I have mine. It is rare they will find common ground.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 07:35 AM

You are very good at making unjustified assumptions, for example about non-voters. Now you think that my world view is predicated on what I read in The Guardian. All I can say about you is that, wherever you've been in this big, wide wonderful world of ours, you seem to have taken your prejudices with you and based your world view on how they fit what you see. Let's do a little quiz:

"From what you've seen in thousands of Steve's posts on Mudcat, would you say that his world view is predicated on:

(a) the Daily Mail,

(b) the Guardian,

(c) Socialist Worker,

(d) Dawkins,

(e) wot Musket sez?"

Arrogant twit! 😂😂😂

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:05 AM

I guess you got kicked out of the debating society at school. I wonder why?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:08 AM

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 08:28 AM

Many people fought long and hard over centuries to win sufferage. It was only in 1918, less than one hundred years ago that men over 21 and women over 30 eventually won the right to vote. Prior to that millions of people had no right to vote at all. The Representation of the People Act 1918 TRIPLED the electorate.

Not to exercise that right, to my mind is a travesty. If you go to the polls and spoil the paper fine, that's your choice and your right, but not to take part is frankly appalling.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:10 AM

It can be argued that both WW1 and WWII were fought for the preservation of democracy.
One epitaph for the fallen States:
   
         "When you go Home, tell them of us and say,
For your Tomorrow, we gave our Today"

Many many thousands died to preserve democracy and yet, now tomorrow has arrived, there are some who cannot be bothered to participate in the preservation of that right they died for.
         i.e. the right to vote.

Throwing away that right shows precious little respect for the fallen in my view and precious little respect for democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:16 AM

Well you can make a conscious decision NOT to exercise that right if you feel you don't know enough about the issues or the candidates or if you feel that none of them deserve to be elected. Shortly after we moved here we had council elections and I hadn't heard of any of the candidates, nor knew much about the local political setup. The brief bits of information about themselves they gave us gave little or no clue as to where they were on the political spectrum. They tend to be unaligned to the major parties round here. I wasn't going to vote on the strength of nice-sounding names. That was the only time in my whole life that I haven't voted. As for spoiling my ballot paper, well the only person who's going to see that is the poor bugger doing the counting at three in the morning in a draughty village hall. It isn't really much of a statement unless people do it in droves, which almost never happens. I accept that there are people who don't give a sod even though they should give a sod, but, on the whole, we can't say who they are (unless they tell us), so it's best not to be too quick to judge people who choose not to vote. They still pay their taxes. Let's face it, political education is a shambles in this country and in the US and is a stain on democracy. That leaves people easy prey to populists such as Trump and the brexiteers and the right in general. You can easily see the effect on some otherwise quite articulate people who post on this forum. Not likely to change any time soon either, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:17 AM

Unaligned with

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:33 AM

Well I'll be dammed. We have common ground in your last 4 sentences.
You almost gave me a funny turn!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 13 Nov 16 - 09:39 AM

It can also be argued that that's not what the wars were fought for. Your very judgemental take on people not voting is rather reminiscent of the flak some people get for not wearing a poppy. Instead of getting all hoity-toity about people quite legally not voting, why not argue for better political education and a change to make voting compulsory? I wouldn't support the latter myself without a good dose of the former. People not voting en masse is a symptom of political failure to engage people. Then, when they do turn out, they vote for an ignorant, xenophobic, bigoted big-mouth in the US and for a bunch of racist liars in the UK. I think that should concern you far more than bleating about non-voters "throwing away their rights." Which, incidentally, they haven't. They are exercising their rights, within the current laws, in a way that you happen to disapprove of.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 02:35 AM

You have the right to vote - whether you do, or whether you don't again is entirely up to the individual.

What you cannot do however is make the idiotic declaration that those who did not vote actually sided with any of those who did vote, as you and your pas have done. If you elect not to vote you have in effect ruled yourself out of the equation and you have absolutely no right at all to criticise the outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 03:56 AM

I repeat my previous comment in case anyone misunderstood. 38% of the electorate voted to leave. 35% voted to remain. 27% abstained. Nowhere in there are any assumptions made about who the 27% would have voted for or why they abstained. Previously a number of people have stated that the abstainers 'could not be bothered'. That is an invalid assumption. The MPs who will vote on this will have to try and make a guess about the 27%. I do not envy them but they brought it on themselves.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:15 AM

"Nowhere in there are any assumptions made about who the 27% would have voted for or why they abstained"

Really Gnome? Now which one of your pals came out with this then:

"34% percent voted to leave 66% didn't"

Had to point out of course that it wasn't 34% it was 37% and that was 37% of the total electorate, which in turn is irrelevant because it is only the percentage of the electorate that exercises their right to vote that count in any election and in the case of the recent EU Referendum that was the highest turn out of voters that there has ever been in the UK so the only result that counts is that 52% of the voters who voted elected to Leave and only 48% of the voters who voted elected to Remain - The Leave vote won - now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 04:41 AM

I am not responsible for what anyone else posts. I have re-iterated my statement and if anyone wishes to address what I said to me I would be happy to respond.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:02 AM

Very true and a good point Gnome - So - "The Leave vote won - now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people." - A question addressed to you directly.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:23 AM

I am happy with direct questions. I don't have an answer to it though. MPs should vote with the wishes of their constituents. If most of their constituents want to leave the EU, that is the way they should vote. If most of their constituents want to remain, they should vote to remain. If they wish to try to estimate the views of those who abstained, that is up to them.

I have no idea how the individual members of the house would vote and what the majority in the house would be if they were to follow those guidelines. I do know that there is an extra factor in the party line and I hope that in this case the party whip does not apply and members are given a free vote.

Does anyone have the figures by constituency of how the referendum went and how a vote in the house would go if the MPs were guided by their own constituents?

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:38 AM

I should also point out that I have, on many occasions both here and real life, suggested that party politics is not a good way to govern. In my opinion. if MPs voted with their own conscience and the approval of their constituents we would have a much fairer system. As has been pointed out there was a lot of misinformation from both sides in the referendum campaign. Working with the model I suggest, it would be in the members interest to inform his or her constituents of the facts and if anyone wanted to dispute the facts as laid out by the member it should be a matter of public record. The constituents can then decide if their MP has served their opinions fairly. If not the consequences are obvious.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 05:43 AM

" now tell us why the declared wishes of the electorate of the UK who voted should be ignored and overturned by Members of Parliament, who are after all elected to represent the people."
How about - because that's how the constitution works
Politicians can make all the promises they want at election time but, should they decide to carry them out, they have to be possessed by a Parliamentary vote.
You might also add that this is what those who make and administer our laws have ruled - whether the appeal changes anything remains to0 be seen.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:19 AM

I draw your attention to the regional vote at the bottom of the entry. and also the fact that only about 133 constituency boundaries match the electoral division boundaries for the referendum. This makes isolating how the constituency vote aligned a little problematical in most cases. Rather muddies the waters for making an MP accountable for the popular vote when the issue finally gets to Parliament -if ever!

Courtesy of Wikipedia:
Under the provisions of the European Union Referendum Act 2015 there were a total of 382 voting areas across twelve regions using the same boundaries as used in European Parliamentary elections since 1999 under the provisions of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 with votes counted at local authority level: in England the 326 Local districts were used as the voting areas; these consist of all unitary authorities, all metropolitan boroughs, all shire districts, the London boroughs, the City of London and the Isles of Scilly.[3] The nine regions of England were then also used to count the votes at the regional level with Gibraltar being a part of South West England. Northern Ireland was a single voting area, as well as being a regional count although local totals by Westminster parliamentary constituency area were announced.[3] In Scotland the 32 Scottish councils were used as voting areas and a single national count.[3] In Wales the 22 Welsh Councils were used as the voting areas and a single national count.[3]

Counting began as soon as the polls closed on June 23 from 2200 BST onwards making it the first UK-wide referendum to be counted overnight and took nine hours and twenty minutes to complete.

On 23 June 2016 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, by 51.9% for Leave, and 48.1% for the Remain campaign with 263 voting areas voting to "Leave the European Union" to 119 voting areas who voted to "Remain a member of the European Union".

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:33 AM

I was not aware that the figures were not available by parliamentary constituency. It does make things difficult but not impossible. It would be a very poor representative that did not know the wishes of the people that voted for him or her. If they do know, they should vote the way their constituents want them to. If they do not know, maybe they should talk to their constituents more.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 06:50 AM

Apologies.
I meant to link this above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_of_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 14 Nov 16 - 07:21 PM

Members of Parliament are not our delegates. We elect them in order to make responsible decisions on our behalf, but not necessarily according to the wishes of the masses. The concept is that we give them, hopefully, full-time jobs in which they will become far more expert in matters of running the country than we are. We don't impose conditionality on them when we elect them. They have free rein, subject only to such things as party whips. If we don't like what they do, or think that someone else can do a better job, or if we think they are not paying sufficient regard to the concerns of their constituents, we can boot them out.

With regard to the referendum, Iain, MPs are not accountable for the popular vote (your expression). The referendum was advisory only. It was undemocratic for Cameron to make promises about implementation that were illegal. "Advisory" means that MPs may take into consideration what 38% of the electorate asked them to do ("asked" being the operative word). But it does not mean that they have to carry it out. I suspect that most of them will, but, if they don't, make no mistake - they won't have done anything illegal or unconstitutional. They will, of course, have to answer to their constituents.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 03:41 AM

UK EU Referendum 72.1% voter turn out (Highest voter turn out ever in the UK's history) votes to LEAVE totalled 17,410,742 (51.9%), votes to REMAIN totalled 16,141,241 (48.1%) - This somehow is not good enough for Shaw YET in the US Presidential Election with a voter turn out of just 58.1% 61,047,207 votes for Hillary Clinton versus 60,375,962 votes for Trump represents a win for Hillary Clinton and I'd agree with him on that - pity that it is the Electoral College in the USA that elects the President. By the way if the EU Referendum had been based on voter district result detailed in Iain's post then it would have been 68.85% LEAVE against 31.15% REMAIN.

The two can be compared because they are both EITHER, OR decisions.

If politicians are not bound by the results thrown up by Referenda then why on earth should we have them? Should Brexit be blocked or overturned by Parliament then our self-serving, trough guzzling, "professional politicians" in the UK will see exactly what an electorate whose wishes have been ignored can do come the next election (The backlash against the establishment in the US that saw Trump elected will be as nothing in comparison).

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:10 AM

The result of this referendum has always been known to be advisory. As were previous referendums (It has been explained). It is the job of MPs to implement policies depending on a number of factors including the wishes of the people but the whole point is they must adhere to parliamentary procedure, which is all the latest ruling says. The promises made by the government to implement the decision unilaterally were false as were a lot of promises made by both sides of the campaign.

We now seem to be going round in circles again. :-(

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:19 AM

Just for the record, voter turn out has been higher than 72% in several election since WW2. See the chart below.

Voter Turnout Since 1945

In fact it has been higher than 72% in 13 of the 19 elections held since 1945.

Yet more bluster I fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:27 AM

Thanks for that correction Raggy, my apologies, I stand corrected

There Raggy like the last time, that admission took days of tortuous invective to extract didn't it.

Interesting pattern in those election turn outs Raggy.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:43 AM

Steve Shaw:
The concept is that we give them,(MP's) hopefully, full-time jobs in which they will become far more expert in matters of running the country than we are.

Wouch! I nearly got hit by a flying pig!

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 04:52 AM

Bit more difficult to avoid such when you know everyone is watching, isn't it T.

But yes, the turnout has dropped significantly in the last 5 elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 06:06 AM

The same everyone was watching the last time Raggy and my response was only slightly slower as I do not sit at my computer all day, I have other far better things to do, yet even on that last occasion you got your apology and my admission of error on the same day.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 07:13 AM

I said it was the concept, Iains, not the reality.


"If politicians are not bound by the results thrown up by Referenda then why on earth should we have them? Should Brexit be blocked or overturned by Parliament..."

Why indeed. But I don't see your problem with referendums being advisory. The government should have made that crystal clear at the outset instead of triggering a pointless dispute about it for months after. It's perfectly posssible to ask what people think and to say that we'll pay close attention to what you say but the constitution doesn't allow us to be bound by it. Brexit won't be "blocked" by anybody because it isn't even beginning to be underway and May hasn't a clue as to how to proceed. And you can't overturn something that doesn't even exist. If you have an argument with our constitution, that's for a new thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Raggytash
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 07:43 AM

This is all rather tedious but yet again we are subject to bluff and bluster.

I first mentioned the Field General Court Martial on the 7th May. Firstly you told me to toddle off and do some googling about General Court Martials and Field Court Martials. The next day the 8th you stated there was no such animal as a Field General Court Martial. The day after that the 9th you again stated there is no such thing as a Field General Court Martial.

Later that same day, after Joe Offer's intervention you reluctantly admitted you were in error to Joe, the admission of error to me came later that day after I had pushed the issue.

So it wasn't the same day at all, was it.


Like I have said earlier you were Kow-towing to perceived authority. Your submission to authority rings clear in your posts, it's really quite pathetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 09:58 AM

The result of this referendum has always been known to be advisory.

By whom Dave? It was not reported during the campaign.
After the result it had to be taken to court to decide, so how could it be known before it had even been tested?
We still will not know for sure until the appeal is heard next month.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:04 AM

That fact that it was advisory is written into the act detailing the referendum for anyone who wants to look. The ruling was not whether the referendum was advisory or not but whether parliamentary procedure could be overruled. I do not see the point of going over what I have already said any further. It will not make the results any different.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:22 AM

The ruling was not whether the referendum was advisory or not but whether parliamentary procedure could be overruled

They are the same thing Dave.
If it was advisory, it would have to go to Parliament.
If not, the result would be binding and Parliament would have no say.

It will not be finally established until the appeal is heard

If only someone had made the challenge before the referendum.
I wonder why they did not.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:30 AM

It was advisory. There is no 'if' about it. The court ruled on a point of parliamentary procedure only. Once again I do not see the point of going over what I have already said any further.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:41 AM

If the appeal succeeds, the result will have been binding and not advisory.
No-one can know which it was until it is decided in law.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:46 AM

"If it was advisory, it would have to go to Parliament.
If not, the result would be binding and Parliament would have no say."

Then there's the third possibility, that an incompetent Tory government that had given the public an undertaking that the law of the land did not entitle them to make tried to bulldoze the thing through in the hope that sufficient hubris would overwhelm their cockup. And let's not forget how they must have been keeping their fingers crossed that we'd vote remain so that none of this would come out and they'd all live happily ever after.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 10:59 AM

A leaked memo claims that the Government has no planned strategy for leaving Europe
They have said they don't recognise the memo
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:01 AM

No Steve. That is just another way of putting the second possibility.
I remind you that Labour also promised a binding referendum, and never questioned the legality of the government pledge to the people that their decision would be binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:02 AM

I can only, once more, repeat that the referendum was advisory and was known to be advisory by anyone who had read the act. I recommend that anyone who is interested reads it. Anyone who has not read it cannot know the contents. If any MP had not read it, that borders on criminally negligent. In my opinion.

Whether the result can now be made binding without the approval of parliament is yet to be seen. My main point is that the referendum, at the time it was taken, was advisory and I hope this is the last time I need to repeat myself.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:23 AM

We know about the Act Dave, but the people were told that this referendum would be accepted as binding, and no-one challenged that pledge until after the result was announced.

That challenge may or may not succeed.
Until then, no-one knows if it was advisory or binding.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Teribus
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 11:38 AM

Not really all that fussed about it as long as Brexit goes ahead. For our "professional politicians" do anything else then, as the result of the EU Referendum still stands, the next election will be fought on one single issue Brexit and the party that guarantees to get us out of Europe will win it.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Iains
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 12:09 PM

There is another important factor to bear in mind as the delays accumulate. After March 31st 2017, Article 50 processes cease to be based on simple majority voting. Thereafter the process becomes much slower.
Prevarication and delay can be guaranteed.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 01:01 PM

People were told all sorts of things that were not true. I think I have addressed all the points on multiple occasions and have given nothing but the facts. There is nothing else I can do so, unless anyone has a question of me that I have not already answered, I am happy to leave the thread to continue going round in circles until it falls over, dizzy.

DtG

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Nov 16 - 01:08 PM

Ah, but I put it far better than you did, Keith. Unlike you, I don't feel the need to be nice to Tories. And yes the pledge was challenged, or discussed, before the result. I knew months before that the vote was advisory only, and a number of other people here also knew. That was even a pre-vote discussion programme on the Beeb about just that, though for the life of me I can't remember who it was or when it was on - I was in my car coming back from somewhere or other at the time. You just weren't keeping up. There was no outcry because almost every man and almost all his dogs thought we were staying, in which case there was no squabble to be had. Then, as we all know, Cameron woke up dead.

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 10:52 AM

Steve, if you knew it was only advisory, why did you post these?

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 05 Jul 16 - 08:44 PM

The thing is, Teribus, less than 38% of the total electorate, about 17 million out of 46.5 million entitied to vote, have forced an irrevocable decision on this country.

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 06 Jul 16 - 06:42 AM

Well that response doesn't surprise me in the least, Teribus. But this is not a game. This is an irrevocable, once-and-for-all decision. It is far more serious even then a general election in many regards. It is also lopsided in that a leave vote is irrevocable

Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 02 Sep 16 - 02:26 PM

We have allowed less than 38% of the electorate to make a irrevocable decision based on fear and ignorance

Subject: RE: BS: Brexit again
From: Greg F.
Date: 16 Nov 16 - 11:13 AM

I percieve the Professor is having difficulty, one again, with understanding the English language. Perhaps a reading comprehension refresher course is in order.