Brexit leader wants to bore the British public into a low turnout

2»

Comments

  • Doctor_WibbleDoctor_Wibble Posts: 26,580
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Whoever repeats the most memorable lies most often will probably win.
    This is the most likely scenario - there's too much crap being punted about by both sides and because it's a complicated issue, people will end up blocking out the detail because they don't know what's true and what isn't, and will ultimately vote based on the way they feel about it and which way - to them - feels the right way to go.
  • normalmishanormalmisha Posts: 1,297
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sadly I do not share your views that what is said will be checked by the general public. I think that by the time we get to polling day, most people will be shell shocked and will just vote based on very simplistic lines, whether it is immigration, jobs, sovereignty or terrorism.

    Whoever repeats the most memorable lies most often will probably win. Odd as it sounds, I hope Remain are the most effective liars, otherwise we will get a result I don't support! Sadly, Farage has had years of practice, and is very good at this game.

    How can you not support the result of a democratic vote? That's the same as not supporting democracy.

    P.S. I will be voting Leave.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    How can you not support the result of a democratic vote? That's the same as not supporting democracy.

    P.S. I will be voting Leave.

    :confused::confused::confused:

    I didn't vote Conservative, just because they won the General Election, doesn't mean I have to now support them. I think you have an odd idea of democracy.
  • Dan 54Dan 54 Posts: 1,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    £15 billion is £15 billion too much to belong to an organisation that was sold to the electorate as an economic one, not the federalistic, expansionist political one we`ve ended up with. This time, the electorate know exactly what they are voting for, that`s why we are getting all these apocalyptic horror stories from the Remain campaign.

    Love the way the remainders say "only" 15 billion.
    As Tesco say every little helps.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It will do - likely to be the WTO level.

    Which works out as an average tariff of 3%
  • Dan 54Dan 54 Posts: 1,822
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    :confused::confused::confused:

    I didn't vote Conservative, just because they won the General Election, doesn't mean I have to now support them. I think you have an odd idea of democracy.

    My days,pot and kettle spring to mind.
  • BlairdennonBlairdennon Posts: 14,207
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    :confused::confused::confused:

    I didn't vote Conservative, just because they won the General Election, doesn't mean I have to now support them. I think you have an odd idea of democracy.

    It is not about supporting the Tories it is about supporting the result and how it was reached. That is about acceptance. Does not mean you cannot criticise them or moan about them and even work to have them replaced within the confines of the democratic process.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It is not about supporting the Tories it is about supporting the result and how it was reached. That is about acceptance. Does not mean you cannot criticise them or moan about them and even work to have them replaced within the confines of the democratic process.

    We don't live in North Korea. People are allowed to support or not support the result of an election/referendum. I'm not calling for a revolution, just the freedom to say it was a mistake if the result isn't the one I would have prefered.

    Let's make a deal, if the result is Remain, you can say you didn't support it every time the EU does something you don't like, and if the result is Leave, I can say I didn't support it every time some bad UK economic results are published.

    It's called living in a free country, and is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,421
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's called living in a free country, and is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    We won't have to worry about such pesky things as the ECHR if it's a leave vote!
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James2001 wrote: »
    We won't have to worry about such pesky things as the ECHR if it's a leave vote!

    Yes we will.

    Many countries have signed up to the HCHR that aren't in the EU, including Turkey, Ukraine and Azerbaijan.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,421
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    But then again the Tories have already talked about pulling us out of it in favour of a "British bill of rights". And voting for Brexit will make them more likely to try and push ahead with it.

    There's a reason why the likes of Gove and IDS are so passionate about Brexit after all.
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James2001 wrote: »
    But then again the Tories have already talked about pulling us out of it in favour of a "British bill of rights". And voting for Brexit will make them more likely to try and push ahead with it.

    There's a reason why the likes of Gove and IDS are so passionate about Brexit after all.

    Yes, we can then legitimately have worse human rights than Azerbaijan! Just what I've always wanted.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,421
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It's what the Tories want, then they can shit on poor people more than they already have. IDS's act earlier as if he had compassion for poor people was a joke after the way he's treated them for the past 6 years. He's one of the first who can't wait for our human rights to be stripped away.
  • Ethel_FredEthel_Fred Posts: 34,127
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    James2001 wrote: »
    But then again the Tories have already talked about pulling us out of it in favour of a "British bill of rights".
    Creating a British Bill of Rights is unnecessary as it will simply affirm the measures in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but damage the country's moral authority internationally, peers warned.

    What is it with this government and doing pointless things?
  • Steve_HolmesSteve_Holmes Posts: 3,457
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ethel_Fred wrote: »

    Why is that pointless? If that is the case, then the EJC is pointless - as the principles embodied in the EJC are supposedly a reflection of the ECHR, ( which is supposedly safeguarding basic human rights, such as 'entitlement to a family life' etc.); however, the interpretation of those rights by EU judges is often open to dispute, by prioritising individual rights ahead of the safety of the UK general public, whereas, with a British Bill of Rights, it should be possible for the rights of UK citizens in general to be given priority ahead of say a serious non-UK serious criminal - for a change.
    IF SO, I am all for it!! We have far too many foreign serious criminals allowed to remain in the UK instead of facing automatic deportation, because of their UK families.

    If such families desired, they would not be prevented from travelling with their foreign husbands to their spouses place of birth. However, if they preferred to stay in the UK, that would be their rightful choice - and the rights of the UK public of not being placed in danger by serious foreign criminals would also would be upheld.
  • MargMckMargMck Posts: 24,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Kiteview wrote: »
    Actually according to the EU budget, we sent €11,341.6 Bn (circa £8.6 Bn) in 2014. That's around 0.52% of our GNI.

    On a per capita basis, it is less than most spend on their council tax, never mind being a lot, lot less than they do on their income tax/NI.

    This sounds like a mugging menu. The fewer pickpockets the better.
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    Dan 54 wrote: »
    Love the way the remainders say "only" 15 billion.
    As Tesco say every little helps.

    its not 15 billion.Thats no camp fib number one - producing a bigger figure by ignoring the rebate we don't pay anyway. The figure that matters is the net figure which allows for the money we get back for agriculture, and the regions. We would have to spend that anyway. No' s response to that is to promise to support farmers and the regions , while claiming to be able to use the same money to spend on the NHS, Schools and anything else they think will sound popular. That almost halves the figure to about 8.5 billion . You then need to pay out the aid money, that was channelled through the EU nationally instead . No is again ambigous whether it would support the current aid target. The isolationists want cuts there, Boris and his clan would reject that as immoral.

    You end up, after allowing for other educational and research spending , and the aid channelled via the EU with a saving of 6-7 billion. You might also want to spend what we spend now, via the EU, supporting stability in eastern Europe. You end up with an amount which is utterly trivial, in annual spending of 720 plus billion. It would meet extra NHS demand for one year, and then be forgotten - as demand would rise by another 6 billion the next year. And it would be swallowed up by the economic downside of exit - which, on even the optimistic assessments, would cut GNP, by about 50 billion, and government spending, pro rata, by over 20 billion.

    Losing 20 billion of spending - to get 6 billion, isn't a good deal -except to the no leaders who now say its a good price to pay for something else. But if they think that there will be a downside- but that's worth paying , they can't honestly go around telling voters there will be no downside, and that there's going to be enormous amounts of extar money. Its fraudulent, as well as inconsistent.
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    We don't live in North Korea. People are allowed to support or not support the result of an election/referendum. I'm not calling for a revolution, just the freedom to say it was a mistake if the result isn't the one I would have prefered.

    Let's make a deal, if the result is Remain, you can say you didn't support it every time the EU does something you don't like, and if the result is Leave, I can say I didn't support it every time some bad UK economic results are published.

    It's called living in a free country, and is protected under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

    Referendums and democracy don't go well together. The basis of democracy is that the people can decide, but that requires them to have some mechanism to change their mind. Parliaments come up for a vote every 5 years, so , there, such a mechanism exists.

    You can have a referendum that has a clear result, thats unlikely to change in decades - because its an issue that unaffected by events, and public opinion is likely to change only slowly - like the FPTP referendum.

    This referendum though is likely to be close. Working out what option the people want instead, if there is a no vote, is impossible from the question asked, and the down turn post exit, or a major immigration crisis, post a remain vote, are likely to produce the opposite result in polls, soon after. If it takes 5-10 years to see the new option, post a no vote, its pretty inevitable that, for much of that period, any referendum would return a different result.

    Basically, its far from clear what a vote won by 5-10% means, if the same electorate suggest they want the opposite result a day. month, year, or decade later. Its also a complete mystery what terms a no vote is a mandate to negotiate for -so no one can say if the publics intent has been followed.
Sign In or Register to comment.