Interesting video about Brexit

Forums › Off topic › Interesting video about Brexit

1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 38

BDFL - Memuneh
80671 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41121

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1581062 27-Jun-2016 13:21

DaveB:OK, it had been my intention to just ignore you. But I will say this - I really do think you need to tone it down a little and stop abusing everybody. One, two, three, four or even five times I can accept. I am actually very tolerant and can be known for the odd outburst myself.

But to bang on and on, in the manner that you do, is, quite frankly boring and irritating. You really do need to understand (to me at least) that you appear to be continually insulting people for reasons that escape me.

The mods can ban me if they want, I've said my piece and have NO regrets in doing so.

This is the kind of crap I DON'T WANT IN THIS THREAD.

@DaveB, you posted this AFTER I asked people to stop talking about each other. I'd appreciate immensely if you did not post in this thread any more.

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#1581066 27-Jun-2016 13:25

networkn:

I believe that the EU is stronger than the UK and the EU intends to make Britain sorry for it's lack of forethought and vision.

I missed seeing that posted. I agree - and I'm somewhat suspicious that they truly are going to ram a message home very firmly whilst putting on the appearance of being accommodating.

Pays to remember that the German economy is 33-45% larger than the British economy (that's before the British Economy shrank on Friday), the UK comprised only about 17% of EU GDP (and thus only about 3% of Global GDP). Even if Britain disappeared entirely, the world will go on.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1581069 27-Jun-2016 13:40

Satch:

networkn:

What I don't get is that other than the immigration issue they really benefit no way unless I am mistaken. They would have been better to identify that as a key thing and approached brussels about some way to limit immigration through the EU. Or is that not possible? I would imagine they would have been able to use exiting the EU as a big stick in negotiations.

I believe that the EU is stronger than the UK and the EU intends to make Britan sorry for it's lack of forethought and vision.

This.

THIS!

Pretty much not possible. You will have observed that Angela Merkel's rash decision to invite all and sundry to the paradise of the EU without actually asking any of the other countries whether they liked that idea (given that once in the EU, said migrants can go anywhere more or less unhindered) rather set the tone on that particular issue.

I would suggest that that single act alone caused a large part of the "Out" votes from swing voters.

Geektastic

18012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 8470

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1581072 27-Jun-2016 13:47

tdgeek:

networkn:

Well with millions of voters difference, a few voicing an opinion like this probably isn't representative of enough people to make a difference either way.

Having said that, the people who voted that way hoping it wouldn't happen or who buyers remorse just shows the absolute stupidity of those individuals. Almost defies belief. I can only hope they don't breed.

The way I see it, its a poor job of the Remain campaign putting forward their case. Its a case of emotion vs facts, and there are pros and cons on both sides, it seems few put up real numbers and real number based arguments when promoting to Remain

What Remain lacked IMV was anything very positive.

The majority of their message was Chicken Little Politics: If you do this, the sky will fall!

People do not much enjoy being hectored and badgered. Given that the natural disposition of a lot of British people is deep suspicion and distrust of continentals, positive messages to overcome that were required but not very forthcoming.

Combine that with clear action from Germany to invite in just about anyone from anywhere whether any other country wants them or not and you get the result we got.

Had Remain been positive and the German led core said "Hey - we get that you do not want more people and we accept we have more space for them than you do, so we've changed the rules so that you can refuse them" then I am sure the voters would probably have stuck with the status quo.

One thing no one should make light of is just how annoyed the EU must have made 17 million people to get them to change the status quo of 40+ years and give them the bird, even knowing that it would cost them.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

#1581088 27-Jun-2016 13:53

dejadeadnz:
Rikkitic: for the love of whatever, please read the whole of the article before commenting. And do not put words into my mouth and tell me what I believe in, as per Mauricio's early request. Moreover, if you are going to just keep asserting, without further argument, that majoritarianism represents the be all and all of democracy, when I have given you an easy to read article summarising views supporting yours and also arguments by the author suggesting that institutional protection of minorities are required, then what's the point in us continuing?

I did read the article and nothing in it changes my mind. The only thing I might clarify is that I don't think rule by simple majority is a good idea, as evidenced by the Brexit fiasco. How much majority should be required is a matter of debate. Maybe it should be 66%, or maybe 90%, but it shouldn't be 50.000001%. That just creates a very large, very angry minority, as can now be seen. But everyone should have a vote, and they should all be equal.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1581096 27-Jun-2016 14:00

Perhaps they shoulda set the voting threshold to stay or leave at 2/3rds or something like that, since it's such a significant issue. They didn't however, and this is what the people will have to live with like it or not.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1581101 27-Jun-2016 14:09

Important to keep in mind that the referendum was NON-BINDING.

So in actuality, the Government still have to make a decision whether to exit the EU or not. That hasn't happened yet. They could even call another referendum.

IMHO they would be foolish to follow through. They've created a mess anyway, sure, but they will be even worse off for leaving the EU.

networkn

Networkn
32876 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15478

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1581105 27-Jun-2016 14:12

ubergeeknz:

Important to keep in mind that the referendum was NON-BINDING.

So in actuality, the Government still have to make a decision whether to exit the EU or not. That hasn't happened yet. They could even call another referendum.

IMHO they would be foolish to follow through. They've created a mess anyway, sure, but they will be even worse off for leaving the EU.

Actually, David Cameron stated they would treat it as binding after the results were in.

He could go back on it, and force another referendum, but most likely wouldn't.

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1581106 27-Jun-2016 14:13

Rikkitic:

I did read the article and nothing in it changes my mind. The only thing I might clarify is that I don't think rule by simple majority is a good idea, as evidenced by the Brexit fiasco. How much majority should be required is a matter of debate. Maybe it should be 66%, or maybe 90%, but it shouldn't be 50.000001%. That just creates a very large, very angry minority, as can now be seen. But everyone should have a vote, and they should all be equal.

Doesn't a threshold like that make it even worse if the losers come up just short?

Say the threshold for the referendum had been 60% and the brexit side managed to get 59%. Wouldn't that mean you just have a lot more hacked off voters?

DarthKermit

5346 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3317

Trusted

#1581107 27-Jun-2016 14:13

Yeah, it's non-binding but they're all acting like nothing can stop the change now. I don't know why.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

#1581149 27-Jun-2016 14:57

SJB:

Doesn't a threshold like that make it even worse if the losers come up just short?

Say the threshold for the referendum had been 60% and the brexit side managed to get 59%. Wouldn't that mean you just have a lot more hacked off voters?

There has to be a line somewhere. It is going to be arbitrary regardless. I don't know exactly where it should be, but if the losers know in advance that it is 60% and they fall just short, then they just have to accept that. Maybe it would be no different than now, but it seems fairer to me.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

sir1963

3428 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3756

Subscriber

#1581165 27-Jun-2016 15:13

Rikkitic:

SJB:

Doesn't a threshold like that make it even worse if the losers come up just short?

Say the threshold for the referendum had been 60% and the brexit side managed to get 59%. Wouldn't that mean you just have a lot more hacked off voters?

There has to be a line somewhere. It is going to be arbitrary regardless. I don't know exactly where it should be, but if the losers know in advance that it is 60% and they fall just short, then they just have to accept that. Maybe it would be no different than now, but it seems fairer to me.

Hang on, everyone knew in advance that anything over 50% meant a win for either side, the line had be drawn, and it was not arbitrary. Over 50% = majority.

How does 60% now make that fairer ? Why not 40% ?

Fairer does not mean rigging the rules to ensure the side you support wins through manipulated advantage. That is the opposite of fair.

HOWEVER:

Given that only 48% of the 71.8% who voted wanted to stay, that comes to 34.46% of eligible voters (100%).

So in typical Politician spin, that means 65.54% of eligible voters did not vote to stay. We have your more than 60%.

ubergeeknz

3344 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1041

Trusted

Vocus

#1581169 27-Jun-2016 15:24

networkn:

Actually, David Cameron stated they would treat it as binding after the results were in.

Yes, and then he resigned...

SJB

2945 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2287
Inactive user

#1581171 27-Jun-2016 15:25

Rikkitic:

There has to be a line somewhere. It is going to be arbitrary regardless. I don't know exactly where it should be, but if the losers know in advance that it is 60% and they fall just short, then they just have to accept that. Maybe it would be no different than now, but it seems fairer to me.

But if the line is at 50% of voters you have less hacked off losers.

And surely it can't be fair if 59% vote for something and lose to 41%. That's like saying in a Rugby World Cup final you have to win by x% points more than the other team otherwise the team scoring less points win.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
19077 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 16328

Lifetime subscriber

#1581175 27-Jun-2016 15:28

Good points but then how else would you do it? There has to be some kind of line. Every system of self-government involves a social contract, whether enshrined in a constitution or not. Everyone agrees to be bound by a given set of rules. If a significant group breaks this agreement, you have civil unrest and possibly civil war. The assumption here is that everyone agrees that a majority vote decides the issue. The losers may not like it, but they accept it because they accept that this is the rule. My own personal feeling, which is why I said what I did, is that the majority of people may find it easier to accept a 60% win than a 50+% win. That does mean that those favouring the issue have to climb a steeper mountain to get their way, but it also means that if they do win, the losers will probably find a 60% majority easier to accept. I don’t know if this is so, but it’s how I would feel. I think a lot of the angry disappointment now being expressed is because the majority was so slim.

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1 | ... | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | ... | 38