hush Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Your argument would only work if the FTSE 100 companies were responsible for 81% of all people in employment. So are you stupid enough to claim that? You really go out of your way to prove your stupidity. Why would my arguement only work if 81% of people were emplyed in FTSE 100 companies and why would I claim that? I only put up the link to show your previous claim to be utter drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litotes Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 You mean like what the Muirfield Golf Club are doing again. It's funny they adopted that idea early this year and didn't get the result they wanted and are having another go next year. At least there will be one second referendum in Scotland for them to look forward to next year. And like the leavers did - except because of the ineptitude of the ruling government who hadn't considered the consequences of the knee-jerk haters (aka leavers) who didn't actually vote on the matter in hand and instead used it as an opportunity to give the government (and the country) a bloody nose, they hadn't put in place the correct legislation akin to the Irish resolution, we are now doomed to leave the EU. What was it one of the main leave supporters said... "a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum." What is sauce for the goose... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
altus Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 You mean like what the Muirfield Golf Club are doing again. It's funny they adopted that idea early this year and didn't get the result they wanted and are having another go next year. Muirfield are having another vote because they've realised the last one means they are no longer eligible to hold major golf tournaments - with a resultant big hit to the clubs finances. The parallels to brexit are perhaps closer than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil752 Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 I don't know, young people campaigning against something they don't want. Down with this sort of thing! cool quiz i get 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamston Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 (edited) Muirfield are having another vote because they've realised the last one means they are no longer eligible to hold major golf tournaments - with a resultant big hit to the clubs finances. The parallels to brexit are perhaps closer than you think. The members knew last time of the consequences, of continuing not to allow female members. They are just hoping to shame a few more members, to vote for something they don't want, so the club get back on the rota. No parallels to the EU referendum vote, because no one knows whether the UK finances will be better or worse, as a consequence of the outcome of the EU referendum result. ---------- Post added 31-12-2016 at 08:10 ---------- And like the leavers did - except because of the ineptitude of the ruling government who hadn't considered the consequences of the knee-jerk haters (aka leavers) who didn't actually vote on the matter in hand and instead used it as an opportunity to give the government (and the country) a bloody nose, they hadn't put in place the correct legislation akin to the Irish resolution, we are now doomed to leave the EU. What was it one of the main leave supporters said... "a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum." What is sauce for the goose... You are spouting nonsense, because voters who voted to leave the EU, did so because they wanted the UK to leave the EU. Calling voters haters because they didn't vote the way you wanted, will not change the result and just makes you look silly. Yes, Nigel Farage would have been a sore loser. Edited December 31, 2016 by Gamston Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Perhaps if 66% of the population were to sign the petition calling for a 2nd vote we should get one. Once we are out we could perhaps consider a vote in 35 years to rejoin if the EU still exists. That's the main problem as I saw it from the start. A vote to stay could be retested every few years with no consequence. A vote to leave can't be reversed for generations, and even if one day reversed, we'll never have the same status on rejoining. An action that makes such a long term and fundamental change should require more than a 2% majority to enact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hush Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 That's the main problem as I saw it from the start. A vote to stay could be retested every few years with no consequence. A vote to leave can't be reversed for generations, and even if one day reversed, we'll never have the same status on rejoining. An action that makes such a long term and fundamental change should require more than a 2% majority to enact. Well I seem to recall that once we joined the EU that decision wasn't tested again for a generation. But you did make some valid points previously. I agree that once we have left there should be a vote evey 20 years or so and if more that 66% of the electorate vote to reapply to join the EU we should ask the EU for terms. Once those terms were established we could have a second vote to see if the British people like the deal on offer. So a referendum in 2037 ought to be on the agenda of at least one political party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Cid Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 That's the main problem as I saw it from the start. A vote to stay could be retested every few years with no consequence. The referendum caused a lot of uncertainty, which many say has negatively affected investment and the London stock exchange, before and after the vote. Its very difficult to exit the EU, we need to be sure that is what we what to do. We have to negotiate how much we still have to pay into EU contributions, it has been reported that the UK owes over £20 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hush Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 An action that makes such a long term and fundamental change should require more than a 2% majority to enact. And just to clear up that little myth. The referendum result was Leave 17410742 Remain 16141241 Leave got 7.86% more votes than remain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mafya Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 The referendum caused a lot of uncertainty, which many say has negatively affected investment and the London stock exchange, before and after the vote. Its very difficult to exit the EU, we need to be sure that is what we what to do. We have to negotiate how much we still have to pay into EU contributions, it has been reported that the UK owes over £20 billion. my bold= I posted this before but you may have missed it, since brexit we have managed to secure £15 billion pounds worth of foreign investment so this blows you theory I've highlighted out of the water about negatively affected investment after the vote= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/30/britain-has-secured-15billion-extra-foreign-investment-since/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts