The Consequences of Brexit [part 5] Read 1st post before posting

[Waldo]

The Tories created a straight yes/no vote based on a simple majority. In reality a supermajority referendum should have been used. That would have provided a truly decisive result.

 

The irony is that the Tories have imposed supermajority rules on union balloting. They know how important votes should be designed. They’ve done it.

 

I'm not sure what a supermajority referendum is; presumably, it's where you'd need more than 50% of people who are eligible to vote, to vote for a change, in order for that change to be implemented?

 

If so, you could have a situation where 50% (of population who are eligible to vote) abstain, 49% vote for change, 1% vote against change; and the change would not be implemented.

 

I'm not sure there is any good fundamental argument to support one system over the other. Powers that be will tend to go with whichever system will most likely deliver the results they want.

 

Also, on the topic of dodgy referendums; another situation that seems wrong, is with the Scottish referendum. You give people the choice, to make some irreversible change (in this instance, Scotland leaving he union), and if you don't get a 'yes' result, just keep having more referndums until you do get a 'yes' result. Dodgy as hell. Their should have been a time limit linked to the 'no' (remain with the union) option.

[Car Boot]

But surely they won't exist after brexit...

The low paid, zero hours EU migrant worker, that is...

 

The era of milk and honey that brexit promised will mean an end to zero hours contracts and low pay won't it?

 

Throwing off your shackles of the capitalistic EU tyrants will mean that everyone will become wealthy, we'll have an overfunded NHS and will ave taken back control.

 

That's what we've been promised - are you saying it won't be like that? ???

 

The number of EU nationals living in Britain more than doubled from 1.6 million to 3.8 million between 2007 and 2017.

 

Do Remainers actually believe that 3.8 million people will return to the EU paradise rather than live in post Brexit Britain?

 

The majority of EU nationals vastly prefer to live in non - EU UK, without a shadow of a doubt.

[Top Cats Hat]

 

The majority of EU nationals vastly prefer to live in non - EU UK, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

As demonstrated by the large numbers of EU nationals who have now left the UK since June 2016, many of whom would prefer to earn strong €uros rather than weak pounds!

[mafya]

As demonstrated by the large numbers of EU nationals who have now left the UK since June 2016, many of whom would prefer to earn strong €uros rather than weak pounds!

 

They was only here for the money then? Thanks for clearing that up....

[tinfoilhat]

They was only here for the money then? Thanks for clearing that up....

 

Are they here for the food? The more overt racism post 2016?

[RJRB]

They was only here for the money then? Thanks for clearing that up....

 

That’s what economic migrants do.....the world over.

[tinfoilhat]

That’s what economic migrants do.....the world over.

 

I was wondering if there is a list of things that migrants should and shouldn't do when coming to these shores in the eyes of brexiters. That would make interesting reading.

[Car Boot]

That’s what economic migrants do.....the world over.

 

The mercenary footsoldiers of global capitalism.

 

But saying that, one hardworking EU economic migrant is worth more than a thousand affluent, skinny latte sipping, middle class Remain supporting professionals with a Brexit chip on their shoulder.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Car Boot

[I1L2T3]

I'm not sure what a supermajority referendum is; presumably, it's where you'd need more than 50% of people who are eligible to vote, to vote for a change, in order for that change to be implemented?

 

If so, you could have a situation where 50% (of population who are eligible to vote) abstain, 49% vote for change, 1% vote against change; and the change would not be implemented.

 

I'm not sure there is any good fundamental argument to support one system over the other. Powers that be will tend to go with whichever system will most likely deliver the results they want.

 

Also, on the topic of dodgy referendums; another situation that seems wrong, is with the Scottish referendum. You give people the choice, to make some irreversible change (in this instance, Scotland leaving he union), and if you don't get a 'yes' result, just keep having more referndums until you do get a 'yes' result. Dodgy as hell. Their should have been a time limit linked to the 'no' (remain with the union) option.

 

For example, for a issue with huge implications you could do a minimum turnout of 75% and winning threshold of 55%

 

I think 55% is the incontrovertible winning vote. Nobody could argue with that. The margin would be so great that even with the dodginess we’ve seen there could be no chance of a challenge.

 

That is where Cameron messed up. But he’s a gambler.

 

---------- Post added 04-11-2018 at 15:51 ----------

 

The mercenary footsoldiers of global capitalism.

 

But saying that, one hardworking EU economic migrant is worth more than a thousand affluent, skinny latte sipping, middle class Remain supporting professionals with a Brexit chip on their shoulder.

 

Your posts are ridiculous

[L00b]

It is certainly going to be very entertaining to watch the recorded videos on social media of wealthy middle class professional Remainers in a fancy restaurant having a breakdown because some low paid, zero hours, EU migrant worker gave them a Brexit commemorative coin in their change.

You'll get your kicks however you can, at whosever expense.

 

But it's bit pointless quoting me in context: it won't be at my expense, I don't do the sort of social media you're on about, and I'm still completely out of f*** to give about how Brexit is going to change the lives of remainers, brexiters and undetermineds altogether.

 

I'm a card-carrying mercenary footsoldier of global capitalism, remember?