Brexit busted.

[Challenger]

From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.

"Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."


What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com

FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.

 

[Phoenall]

The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

 

[Andylusion]

The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

 

[montelatici]

From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.

"Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."


What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com

FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.

You don't get irony, do you.

 

[Phoenall]

The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results

 

[Phoenall]

From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.

"Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."


What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com

FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.

You don't get irony, do you.

You dont have many friends do you ???????????????????????????????

 

[Challenger]

From the left wing Financial Times. The UK will return to what it was before, a backwater.

"Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe. By the late 1960s, France, West Germany and Italy — the three founder members closest in size to the UK — produced more per person than it did and the gap grew larger every year. Between 1958, when the EEC was set up, and Britain’s entry in 1973, gross domestic product per head rose 95 per cent in these three countries compared with only 50 per cent in Britain.

After becoming an EEC member, Britain slowly began to catch up. Gross domestic product per person has grown faster than Italy, Germany and France in the 42 years since. By 2013, Britain became more prosperous than the average of the three other large European economies for the first time since 1965.

Professor Nauro Campos of Brunel University has estimated how Britain would have fared if it had not joined the common market. He and his colleagues found the best approximation to Britain’s pre-1973 economic performance to be a combination of New Zealand and Argentina, which like the UK fell behind the US and continental Europe."


What has the EU done for the UK? - FT.com

FT, left wing? Really? I see it more an objective centerist, pro business, publication.

You don't get irony, do you.

I thought we invented it...

 

[montelatici]

The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote. For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care. I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.

 

[Challenger]

The British people voted for freedom from EU tyranny.

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

Civic duty is "very bad"? OK.

Wonder what Australians think about it? or the Belgians; or even the "fathers" of Western Democracy themselves, the Greeks?

 

[Challenger]

Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.

 

[HenryBHough]

Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.

"Disqualified" FOR BEING INSANE?

Good Grief, do you hate The Democrat Party sufficiently that you'd outlaw it entirely?

 

[Challenger]

Why not? Unless they are medically disqualified from voting (i.e. clinically insane), they should vote regardless of what their political views are; the benefits outweigh the disadvantages in my view.

"Disqualified" FOR BEING INSANE?

Good Grief, do you hate The Democrat Party sufficiently that you'd outlaw it entirely?

No, they're far more sane than the GOP who picked Trump; now that's what I call insane.

 

[HenryBHough]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.

 

[Challenger]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.

Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.

 

[Phoenall]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Ah for the good old days when denial was merely a river.

Given we're likely to get either Gove or May as Prime Minister imposed on us any time soon, we really shouldn't make judgements about the level of sanity in other countries. At least you get to vote for whichever incompetent gets to screw you over.

Better than having Corbyn who cant even spell his own name, and is supportive of child rape in the name of islam and increasing taxes for the workers to help pay for unemployable migrants

 

[Andylusion]

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results

Right, but then they are still supposedly part of the problem. They voted for nothing.

I just don't see the purpose. What exactly is the end goal here? Whether people vote or not, they are still going to complain about the outcome.

In fact, forcing them to vote, when they don't care enough to educate themselves, will simply result in even more problems, I would think.

If 10 Million people voted on Brexit, when they honestly do not know enough about the issue, and then didn't like the results, they would still complain, and still blame deceptive campaigning for their vote.

You do realize that the easiest people to sway to an argument, are those who don't care enough to self-inform? Right?

Well now you are forcing those people to vote. That's like a gift to propagandists.

 

[Andylusion]

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote. For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care. I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.

That's what I want. People who don't know, and don't care about any of the major political issues, voting for no other reason than because they want free day care. Talk about literally buying votes.

 

[Andylusion]

I suspect a large percentage actually voted "leave" just to spite Cameron; nothing to to with the EU. Apart from the "little Englanders" dreaming of a "green and pleasant land" free from a "tyranny" that never existed, most voters hadn't got a clue as to what they were voting for, or against as demonstrated by Google after the result.

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

Civic duty is "very bad"? OK.

Wonder what Australians think about it? or the Belgians; or even the "fathers" of Western Democracy themselves, the Greeks?

I'm always curious about this "civic duty". I thought the point of having freedom, was specifically not be pressed in to "civic duty" by a king or dictator.

Moreover, I have never considered voting to be a civic duty. If you don't know anything about the issues, and you don't care at all about politics.... you voting is a civic dis-service.

Your civic duty should be to not vote, if you are ignorant and/or uncaring about the issues of the day.

The more ignorant uncaring people you have voting, the more that showmanship, and propaganda is going to rule over the country. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders is just tiny taste of what will come, when ignorant uncaring people, swayed by slick advertising and charisma, determine the course of the country.

If you need a reminder of what that looks like, try Lenin and Hitler.

Honestly if you combined the rheteric of Bernie Sanders, with the showmanship of Trump, it would be like a Lenin or Hitler speech. The only reason Bernie didn't replace the crime boss Hillary, is because he was old and grey, and couldn't whip the people up with propaganda.

Go read some of the early speeches by Hitler or Lenin. They talk about the fat rich, the evil banks, the investors, and the bad 1%ers and the good 99%ers.... they read like a Bernie Sanders speech.

Both are notoriously devoid of specifics, and talk very little about what specific policies they want to implement. Only that it will be great for the 'working class'. Again very much like a Bernie Sanders speech.

And both were extremely showy. Very much self aggrandizing. Just like Trump.

That's where your "civic duty" of getting people to vote, who don't know any better about any of the topics, leads to. Following your plan we'll end up in ruins, or in war, and likely both.

 

[Phoenall]

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

That would be the only way that this one aspect could be nulled out. They have it in Australia with a box to tick that says NONE OF THE ABOVE and it seems to work as then people can complain freely about election results

Right, but then they are still supposedly part of the problem. They voted for nothing.

I just don't see the purpose. What exactly is the end goal here? Whether people vote or not, they are still going to complain about the outcome.

In fact, forcing them to vote, when they don't care enough to educate themselves, will simply result in even more problems, I would think.

If 10 Million people voted on Brexit, when they honestly do not know enough about the issue, and then didn't like the results, they would still complain, and still blame deceptive campaigning for their vote.

You do realize that the easiest people to sway to an argument, are those who don't care enough to self-inform? Right?

Well now you are forcing those people to vote. That's like a gift to propagandists.

Personally I could not care less if they voted or not, the stones were cast and the result is in. We voted for exit and the vote stands, the apathetic can not have a re-do just because the vote went against their POV they should have went to the polling station and voted.

 

[Phoenall]

Here's another thought for you.

Consider that, in the run-up to the last General Election, all the polls consistently pointed to our having a 'hung Parliament', the expected outcome, another Coalition Government. Poll after poll said the same thing. They never varied.

What actually happened, of course, was that the Conservatives did far better than expected, obtained their working majority, and so went on to form their own Government, 'un-partnered' by any other Party.

I think the factor that nobody took into consideration was the Conservatives' promise to hold a Referendum, should they win. Labour refused to make any such promise. The LibDems were clearly, themselves, committed to Europe. ONLY the Conservatives offered an alternative. That alternative swung victory towards the Conservatives .. was responsible for it.

'Brexit', I believe, was always more popular than anyone believed, including Cameron and his people. This remained a missing factor in everyone's calculations, with the result we've now seen - Brexit a reality, many reacting with shock at the fact of a clear majority wanting to quit the EU.

Summarising, I think you're entirely wrong about people wanting to 'spite' Cameron .. Brexit has been wanted for a long time, and people seized the opportunity Cameron gave them to vote for it. No spite is, or was, involved .. just the seizing of a much sought-after opportunity, one we'd waited to have for a considerable time.

You're forgetting UKIP, if Brexit was so popular in the country as you claim, UKIP should have got a much higher proportion of the vote than it did, although post election analysis seemed to indicate UKIP split the Labour vote more than the Tory vote; the Tories managed to maintain their voter base. Of the 46.5 million registered voters in the UK in 2015, only 11.3 million (24%) voted for the Tories (12% voted for UKIP), hardly the ringing endorsement you'd like to believe.

They did, and if we had proportional representation they would have more M.P's than the greens and lib dems combined.

And because voting is not compulsory we will see this happening more and more, then the apathetic non voters will demand a re-run because they did not get the result they wanted. This is democracy in action and if you don't like it you are quite free to pack your bags and leave

I apologize for jumping in here. You all are having an interesting discussion about UK politics, but this one line boggles my mind.

First, does anyone see the irony of the implied statement? Compulsory voting in a democracy?

Does this not smack of Atlas Shrugged all over again? Page 121 in my book:

"Oh, that?" said Dr. Pritchett. "But I believe I made it clear that I am in favor of it, because I am in favor of a free economy. A free economy cannot exist without competition. Therefore, men must be forced to compete. Therefore, we must control men in order to force them to be free."

"But, look . . . isn't that sort of a contradiction?"

"Not in the higher philosophical sense. You must learn to see beyond the static definitions of old-fashioned thinking. Nothing is static in the universe. Everything is fluid." ​

See a problem here? Force people to have Democracy?

And beyond the logical gymnastics to justify "forced democracy"..... If people are so lazy they don't bother to vote, do we really want them to be the swing vote controlling the direction of the entire country?

Even if you had "forced voting", do you really think that people wouldn't complain about the results even if they were part of them? Already you have groups saying that those who voted in favor of Brexit were duped, and are so dumb they shouldn't be legally allowed to vote. Now you want to require them to vote by law?

Bad plan I think. Very bad.

Some EU states, like Italy, provide small but important benefits for those who vote. For example, kids of people who voted get to jump in line for state provided day care. I think small benefits for voting are acceptable.

That's what I want. People who don't know, and don't care about any of the major political issues, voting for no other reason than because they want free day care. Talk about literally buying votes.

True and then when they dont get what they thought they were promised they behave like spoilt brats. Our forefathers fought for the universal vote for all and would be spinning in their graves now at the antics of the looney left hangers on