Discussion:
Quick easy free trade deal with USA - no punitive tariffs!
(too old to reply)
Norman Wells
2017-10-06 11:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:46:48 +0100, James Harris
Then you agree we shouldn't have another EU referendum...?
Yes. MPs should decide, in Parliament, which is their job to do.
But they did decide.
By a vote of 498 votes to 114 they agreed to trigger Article 50.
 That is not deciding on the final wording of the negotiations, is it?
No, it was a vote by MPs to leave the EU, as we were discussing.
And it was by a massive majority of 384.
No. They weren't voting to leave the EU.
It was a popular vote ("The Will Of The People") that decided that we
should leave the EU.
The MPs were endorsing the result of the popular vote, and authorising
the setting in motion of the process for leaving.
It's the same thing.

If MPs felt they had to endorse the will of the people freely expressed
in the referendum then they don't have any choice to ignore it now.
James Harris
2017-10-06 12:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 15:01:32 +0100, James Harris
On Wed, 4 Oct 2017 10:46:48 +0100, James Harris
Correct.
I think a decision to leave the EU is as important as a decision to use
nuclear weapons on another nation.
The decision doesn't require immense intelligence. It requires a
detailed analysis of the options and the consequences. The ordinary
population are only able to regurgitate the contents of the leaflets
that are delivered to them. They aren't able to offer a useful analysis
from their own skills and experience. Asking them to vote is the
equivalent of tossing a coin, or tossing a few million coins. That isn't
a good basis for a decision to bomb North Korea, or for leaving the EU.
Excellent comment.
Then you agree we shouldn't have another EU referendum...?
Yes. MPs should decide, in Parliament, which is their job to do.
So you are happy they decided to trigger Article 50?
Since 75% of all MPs in all parties are against Brexit, no, of course
not.
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
--
James Harris
MM
2017-10-07 07:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 08:13:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.

They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.

Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
pamela
2017-10-07 10:45:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided.
You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her own but
lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the supreme court
ruling on this.

In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to very
heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet over 100
MPs still opposed the motion.

As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the UK
stayed in or left the EU.
Yellow
2017-10-07 11:30:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided.
You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her own but
lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the supreme court
ruling on this.
That court case was the best thing ever. Made sure there is no going
back or the possibility of further court action to stop us leaving the
EU.

It also clarified the lack of power of the devolved parliaments, so that
was a Brucey Bonus.
Post by pamela
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to very
heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet over 100
MPs still opposed the motion.
Some MPs decided to vote against and they all that that option, whipped
or not whipped. That is how the system works.

But they didn't.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the UK
stayed in or left the EU.
They voted to hand this decision over to the UK electorate instead, and
the vote to do that was decisive. Good, eh. :-)
James Harris
2017-10-07 12:45:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided.
You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her own but
lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the supreme court
ruling on this.
That court case was the best thing ever. Made sure there is no going
back or the possibility of further court action to stop us leaving the
EU.
It also clarified the lack of power of the devolved parliaments, so that
was a Brucey Bonus.
Good points. And now approval for our exit is written in law!
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-07 15:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her
own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the
supreme court ruling on this.
That court case was the best thing ever. Made sure there is no
going back or the possibility of further court action to stop us
leaving the EU.
It also clarified the lack of power of the devolved parliaments,
so that was a Brucey Bonus.
Post by pamela
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to
very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet
over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
Some MPs decided to vote against and they all that that option,
whipped or not whipped. That is how the system works.
But they didn't.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
They voted to hand this decision over to the UK electorate
instead, and the vote to do that was decisive. Good, eh. :-)
So Parliament didn't vote on whether or not to leave the EU, which
is what I said. Well I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
Yellow
2017-10-07 17:01:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
They voted to hand this decision over to the UK electorate
instead, and the vote to do that was decisive. Good, eh. :-)
So Parliament didn't vote on whether or not to leave the EU, which
is what I said.
I have never said otherwise.
pamela
2017-10-07 18:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by pamela
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 11:45:50 +0100, pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power
to trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on
her own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten
the supreme court ruling on this.
That court case was the best thing ever. Made sure there is no
going back or the possibility of further court action to stop
us leaving the EU.
It also clarified the lack of power of the devolved
parliaments, so that was a Brucey Bonus.
Post by pamela
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject
to very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative
and yet over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
Some MPs decided to vote against and they all that that
option, whipped or not whipped. That is how the system works.
But they didn't.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if
the UK stayed in or left the EU.
They voted to hand this decision over to the UK electorate
instead, and the vote to do that was decisive. Good, eh. :-)
So Parliament didn't vote on whether or not to leave the EU,
which is what I said. Well I'm glad we've cleared that one up.
I have never said otherwise.
I never said you did; I had been making the point that Parliament
didn't vote on whether or not to leave the EU and you replied with
several points at a tangent to what I was saying.

So I recapped by concluding nothing you wrote disproved the original
point which was that Parliament didn't vote on whether or not to
leave the EU.
Ophelia
2017-10-07 17:20:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided.
You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her own but
lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the supreme court
ruling on this.
That court case was the best thing ever. Made sure there is no going
back or the possibility of further court action to stop us leaving the
EU.

It also clarified the lack of power of the devolved parliaments, so that
was a Brucey Bonus.
Post by pamela
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to very
heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet over 100
MPs still opposed the motion.
Some MPs decided to vote against and they all that that option, whipped
or not whipped. That is how the system works.

But they didn't.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the UK
stayed in or left the EU.
They voted to hand this decision over to the UK electorate instead, and
the vote to do that was decisive. Good, eh. :-)

==

It certainly is and all the bitching in the world doesn't change that ;p
--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 15:04:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided.
You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her own but
lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the supreme court
ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to very
heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet over 100
MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters. They decide individually how to vote. They
can defy any party whipping.

498 of them voted to trigger Article 50. That's the same as voting to
leave as it has the same effect.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the UK
stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
pamela
2017-10-07 15:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her
own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the
supreme court ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to
very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet
over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters. They decide individually how to
vote. They can defy any party whipping.
498 of them voted to trigger Article 50. That's the same as
voting to leave as it has the same effect.
That's sophistry because you must recall all the debates
surrounding the vote which made it clear MPs were willing to
concede their authority to the PM.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
Ian Jackson
2017-10-07 15:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her
own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the
supreme court ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to
very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet
over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters. They decide individually how to
vote. They can defy any party whipping.
498 of them voted to trigger Article 50. That's the same as
voting to leave as it has the same effect.
That's sophistry because you must recall all the debates
surrounding the vote which made it clear MPs were willing to
concede their authority to the PM.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
I'd give up. If it gives the Brexiteers a warm glow to believe that all
of those 498 MPs really wanted Brexit, then who are we to deprive them
to their delusions?
--
Ian
James Harris
2017-10-07 16:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her
own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten the
supreme court ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to
very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet
over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters. They decide individually how to
vote. They can defy any party whipping.
498 of them voted to trigger Article 50. That's the same as
voting to leave as it has the same effect.
That's sophistry because you must recall all the debates
surrounding the vote which made it clear MPs were willing to
concede their authority to the PM.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
I'd give up. If it gives the Brexiteers a warm glow to believe that all
of those 498 MPs really wanted Brexit, then who are we to deprive them
to their delusions?
I wish you would stop making sweeping statements about Brexiteers. We
are not one amorphous lump, you know!
--
James Harris
Ian Jackson
2017-10-07 18:30:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Harris
I wish you would stop making sweeping statements about Brexiteers. We
are not one amorphous lump, you know!
You're right. I was being far too harsh on reasonable (and reasoning)
Brexiteers. I do apologise. [Honest, I do.]
--
Ian
James Harris
2017-10-07 22:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by James Harris
I wish you would stop making sweeping statements about Brexiteers. We
are not one amorphous lump, you know!
You're right. I was being far too harsh on reasonable (and reasoning)
Brexiteers. I do apologise. [Honest, I do.]
:-)

If my post sounded too demanding, it wasn't meant to be. A smiley may
have been better but an exclamation mark was as far as I got!
--
James Harris
Yellow
2017-10-07 16:58:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 16:55:55 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
I'd give up. If it gives the Brexiteers a warm glow to believe that all
of those 498 MPs really wanted Brexit, then who are we to deprive them
to their delusions?
You could not be more wrong - now there's a shock...

And that would be because we are not all part of a hive mind.

It makes not a jot of difference to me, it was simply a necessary part
of the legal process to implement the result of the referendum.
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 17:26:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively.  Overwhelmingly.  Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power to
trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on her
own but lacked the authority.  Maybe you have forgotten the
supreme court ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject to
very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative and yet
over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters.  They decide individually how to
vote.  They can defy any party whipping.
498 of them voted to trigger Article 50.  That's the same as
voting to leave as it has the same effect.
That's sophistry because you must recall all the debates
surrounding the vote which made it clear MPs were willing to
concede their authority to the PM.
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if the
UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
I'd give up. If it gives the Brexiteers a warm glow to believe that all
of those 498 MPs really wanted Brexit, then who are we to deprive them
to their delusions?
They all marched through the same division lobby as those who did. They
are indistinguishable from those who did.
pamela
2017-10-07 18:40:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
Massively. Overwhelmingly. Decisively.
Actually the MPs voted to give the Prime Minister the power
to trigger Article 50 because Thersa May wanted to do so on
her own but lacked the authority. Maybe you have forgotten
the supreme court ruling on this.
In the chamber this was not left to a free vote but subject
to very heavy whipping within both Labour and Conservative
and yet over 100 MPs still opposed the motion.
MPs are their own masters. They decide individually how to
vote. They can defy any party whipping.
498 of them voted to trigger Article 50. That's the same as
voting to leave as it has the same effect.
That's sophistry because you must recall all the debates
surrounding the vote which made it clear MPs were willing to
concede their authority to the PM.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
As you know Parliament was never given a vote to decide if
the UK stayed in or left the EU.
The Article 50 vote was essentially just that.
Oh dear.
I'd give up. If it gives the Brexiteers a warm glow to believe
that all of those 498 MPs really wanted Brexit, then who are we
to deprive them to their delusions?
That vote and the arm twisting that went before was one of the
scammiest things I've seen for a long time.

To be fair, the outcome wasn't the result of only arm twisting but
it was also due to the craven way very many passionate Remain Tory
MPs rolled over and just gave up. The hardliners in Parliament
must have been overjoyed but now we are seeing a bit more action
from Remainers.

This to-ing and fro-ing we're going to get for years to come stems
from the knife edge outcome of the referendum. It would have been
better for the country if the vote had been won by a larger
margin, such as a two thirds majority.
MM
2017-10-08 07:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-08 08:21:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
MM
2017-10-09 09:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.

MM
Bod
2017-10-09 09:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
--
Bod
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 11:53:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
Indeed, you have to assume they would have voted in the same proportion. It's their fault if they didn't register their opinion.
--
Women have large buttocks because they need airbags behind them. They're shit at reversing.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 16:05:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:53:24 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH idiot's inevitable drivel>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic world:
"I was once told off for killing a mouse too slowly."
MID: <***@red.lan>
One message later:
"I left mine to starve."
MID: <***@red.lan>
MM
2017-10-10 08:21:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?

MM
Bod
2017-10-10 08:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
MM
You aren't making any sense.
--
Bod
MM
2017-10-11 09:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
MM
You aren't making any sense.
Maybe you don't understand basic maths.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:40:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.

We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
MM
2017-10-11 09:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing. General elections
happen every five years, thus providing voters the opportunity to
change their minds.

You don't want to give voters ~any~ opportunity to change their minds
on Brexit. Because you fear you'd lose.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 10:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing.
Halleluiah! It's got through to you at last.

Do please stop calling for another one then.
Post by MM
General elections
happen every five years, thus providing voters the opportunity to
change their minds.
Who mentioned general elections?
Post by MM
You don't want to give voters ~any~ opportunity to change their minds
on Brexit. Because you fear you'd lose.
'A referendum is a once-in-a-generation thing'.

(c) MM October 2017.
MM
2017-10-13 09:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing.
Halleluiah! It's got through to you at last.
Do please stop calling for another one then.
I haven't. I want MPs to do their paid job and decide. They are our
representatives. The referendum wasn't binding.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-13 09:38:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing.
Halleluiah! It's got through to you at last.
Do please stop calling for another one then.
I haven't. I want MPs to do their paid job and decide. They are our
representatives. The referendum wasn't binding.
They did decide. They voted 498 to 114 that Mrs May should trigger
Article 50 to leave the EU. That's 81% of them.
MM
2017-10-15 09:27:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing.
Halleluiah! It's got through to you at last.
Do please stop calling for another one then.
I haven't. I want MPs to do their paid job and decide. They are our
representatives. The referendum wasn't binding.
They did decide. They voted 498 to 114 that Mrs May should trigger
Article 50 to leave the EU. That's 81% of them.
MPs participate in more than one vote in their political lifetimes,
you know.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-15 10:40:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing.
Halleluiah! It's got through to you at last.
Do please stop calling for another one then.
I haven't. I want MPs to do their paid job and decide. They are our
representatives. The referendum wasn't binding.
They did decide. They voted 498 to 114 that Mrs May should trigger
Article 50 to leave the EU. That's 81% of them.
MPs participate in more than one vote in their political lifetimes,
you know.
But that one was the relevant one as regards this discussion.

Sorry it was so overwhelmingly against you and there won't be another one.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-17 16:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Bod
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
MM
You're manipulating statistics. Only 33 million or so bothered to vote.
You don't count non voters.
You do in a referendum. What is the result of 46 - 33? Oh, yes, it's
13, so you're happy to call it democracy when 13 million voters are
ignored?
I am.
We've never considered the views of those who can't be arsed to express
them in the past. Why should we start now?
Because a referendum is once-in-a-generation thing. General elections
happen every five years, thus providing voters the opportunity to
change their minds.
You don't want to give voters ~any~ opportunity to change their minds
on Brexit. Because you fear you'd lose.
Are you high or something? ANY vote can only count those who bother to vote. 1000 people, 150 say yes, 100 say no, 750 don't bother saying anything. Yes still wins. End of story.
--
If Rap is music, then falling off the roof is transportation.
The Peeler
2017-10-17 18:01:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Tue, 17 Oct 2017 17:20:18 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH the retard's usual sick shit unread>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"I have never seen a washing machine which can handle a sofa."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 12:52:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the government is
implementing what we decided, and we've triggered Article 50 to leave.

There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of it over
and over again.
pamela
2017-10-09 23:00:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:21:59 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:13:09 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely
rubber-stamped Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75%
who didn't want to did so, beats me. I can only put it down
to their venal addiction to a job at the cost of doing the
honourable thing, which as representatives of their
consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision
of the British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17
million votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not
representative of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the
government is implementing what we decided, and we've triggered
Article 50 to leave.
There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of
it over and over again.
The referendum wasn't a game of poker. Non-voters are still
citizens and expect to have their rights as citizens respected.
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 07:56:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:21:59 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:13:09 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely
rubber-stamped Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75%
who didn't want to did so, beats me. I can only put it down
to their venal addiction to a job at the cost of doing the
honourable thing, which as representatives of their
consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision
of the British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17
million votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not
representative of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the
government is implementing what we decided, and we've triggered
Article 50 to leave.
There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of
it over and over again.
The referendum wasn't a game of poker. Non-voters are still
citizens and expect to have their rights as citizens respected.
What on earth makes you think they won't be? And what on earth do you
have in mind?
MM
2017-10-10 08:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the government is
implementing what we decided, and we've triggered Article 50 to leave.
There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of it over
and over again.
But, as James Hammerton elsewhere pointed out, lawyers suggest it's
entirely feasible for Article 50 to be revoked at any point up to the
actual date of leaving.

All YOU'RE doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring
the tsunami of opposition to Brexit that is growing every day.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the government is
implementing what we decided, and we've triggered Article 50 to leave.
There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of it over
and over again.
But, as James Hammerton elsewhere pointed out, lawyers suggest it's
entirely feasible for Article 50 to be revoked at any point up to the
actual date of leaving.
Since 'feasible' means "possible and practical to do easily or
conveniently; likely; probable", he's clearly mistaken.

It's a matter of English.
Post by MM
All YOU'RE doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring
the tsunami of opposition to Brexit that is growing every day.
Is it?
MM
2017-10-11 09:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision of the
British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17 million
votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not representative
of the 62 million British people.
None of that matters one iota. We voted, we decided, the government is
implementing what we decided, and we've triggered Article 50 to leave.
There's nothing to be gained from watching the old VHS tapes of it over
and over again.
But, as James Hammerton elsewhere pointed out, lawyers suggest it's
entirely feasible for Article 50 to be revoked at any point up to the
actual date of leaving.
Since 'feasible' means "possible and practical to do easily or
conveniently; likely; probable", he's clearly mistaken.
It's a matter of English.
Post by MM
All YOU'RE doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring
the tsunami of opposition to Brexit that is growing every day.
Is it?
'Fraid so! Good-oh!

MM
pamela
2017-10-09 22:57:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:21:59 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:13:09 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely
rubber-stamped Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75%
who didn't want to did so, beats me. I can only put it down to
their venal addiction to a job at the cost of doing the
honourable thing, which as representatives of their
consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision
of the British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17
million votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not
representative of the 62 million British people.
MM
Not only that but what the government implements needs to be
appropriate for the whole population.

Just because groups in society did not vote for a measure does not
mean they can receive no consideration.

Brexiteers, especially the hardcore ones, seem to forget this.
They act as if this is a sport in which the winner takes all.
Governing isn't like that.
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 07:55:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:21:59 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sat, 7 Oct 2017 09:13:09 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They
decided. You got your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided. The MPs merely
rubber-stamped Article 50 as a formality, though why the 75%
who didn't want to did so, beats me. I can only put it down to
their venal addiction to a job at the cost of doing the
honourable thing, which as representatives of their
consituencies they're supposed to do.
The honourable thing to do was support the democratic decision
of the British people.
Wrong. That 'decision' was advisory. It had no legal basis. 17
million votes from a total of 46 million eligible voters is not
representative of the 62 million British people.
MM
Not only that but what the government implements needs to be
appropriate for the whole population.
Which it does all the time of course. It wants to be re-elected when
the time comes.
Post by pamela
Just because groups in society did not vote for a measure does not
mean they can receive no consideration.
I have no idea why you think they won't.
Post by pamela
Brexiteers, especially the hardcore ones, seem to forget this.
They act as if this is a sport in which the winner takes all.
Governing isn't like that.
Governing is exactly like that actually, constrained only by the desire
to be popular enough to be re-elected.
kat
2017-10-10 09:30:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Not only that but what the government implements needs to be
appropriate for the whole population.
Just because groups in society did not vote for a measure does not
mean they can receive no consideration.
Brexiteers, especially the hardcore ones, seem to forget this.
They act as if this is a sport in which the winner takes all.
Governing isn't like that.
Just like Remainers, and the EU, then, because had they not ignored the
needs and worries of a large proportion of the population, had they
agreed to measures to help them, they could have won the referendum.
But, no, they weren't affected, they preferred their principles over the
real life concerns of the voters.
--
kat
Post by pamela
^..^<
Ian Jackson
2017-10-08 08:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.

Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - and therefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
--
Ian
Fredxxx
2017-10-08 09:48:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.
Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - and therefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
MM only respects the EU. He has no place in the UK.

He dreams of a failed Brexit abd wets himself every time there negative
news coverage of Brexit for the UK and positive coverage when the EU
negotiators are shown in a good light. A true traitor.
MM
2017-10-09 09:36:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
He dreams of a failed Brexit abd wets himself every time there negative
news coverage of Brexit for the UK and positive coverage when the EU
negotiators are shown in a good light. A true traitor.
I can assure you I'm not alone about dreaming for a failed Brexit! The
City is, big business is, the RoW is, manufacturing is, organisations
large and small are, the security services are, the NHS is, retailers
are.

It's really only 17 million blinkered Brexiters in an EU population of
520 million who maintain this farce.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 12:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
He dreams of a failed Brexit abd wets himself every time there negative
news coverage of Brexit for the UK and positive coverage when the EU
negotiators are shown in a good light. A true traitor.
I can assure you I'm not alone about dreaming for a failed Brexit! The
City is, big business is, the RoW is, manufacturing is, organisations
large and small are, the security services are, the NHS is, retailers
are.
It's really only 17 million blinkered Brexiters in an EU population of
520 million who maintain this farce.
We're the only country that's been asked.

Where's democracy in the rest of the EU?
MM
2017-10-10 08:33:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
He dreams of a failed Brexit abd wets himself every time there negative
news coverage of Brexit for the UK and positive coverage when the EU
negotiators are shown in a good light. A true traitor.
I can assure you I'm not alone about dreaming for a failed Brexit! The
City is, big business is, the RoW is, manufacturing is, organisations
large and small are, the security services are, the NHS is, retailers
are.
It's really only 17 million blinkered Brexiters in an EU population of
520 million who maintain this farce.
We're the only country that's been asked.
Huh, we weren't asked *for the sake of the country* ! We were asked to
save the Tory party from imploding due to pressure from eurosceptics.
That was the WHOLE point of the EU referendum, to quell those
eurosceptics and retain power.
Post by Norman Wells
Where's democracy in the rest of the EU?
Ah, so you think referendums are an expression of democracy?

Margaret Thatcher said they were a device of dictators and demagogues.
She was quoting Clement Attlee, who said it first.

Judging by the responses from Brexiters, you do all rather have this
dictatorial and demagogic trait.

Democracy is done *in Parliament*, by members elected by their
constituents to represent them.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Fredxxx
He dreams of a failed Brexit abd wets himself every time there negative
news coverage of Brexit for the UK and positive coverage when the EU
negotiators are shown in a good light. A true traitor.
I can assure you I'm not alone about dreaming for a failed Brexit! The
City is, big business is, the RoW is, manufacturing is, organisations
large and small are, the security services are, the NHS is, retailers
are.
It's really only 17 million blinkered Brexiters in an EU population of
520 million who maintain this farce.
We're the only country that's been asked.
Huh, we weren't asked *for the sake of the country* !
Did I say we were?

I thought I said we're the only country that has been asked.

Which is absolutely true.
Post by MM
We were asked to
save the Tory party from imploding due to pressure from eurosceptics.
That was the WHOLE point of the EU referendum, to quell those
eurosceptics and retain power.
Post by Norman Wells
Where's democracy in the rest of the EU?
Ah, so you think referendums are an expression of democracy?
They are the purest expression of democracy.
Post by MM
Margaret Thatcher said they were a device of dictators and demagogues.
She was quoting Clement Attlee, who said it first.
Judging by the responses from Brexiters, you do all rather have this
dictatorial and demagogic trait.
They were only against them because they feared the people would not
agree with them.
Post by MM
Democracy is done *in Parliament*, by members elected by their
constituents to represent them.
Not necessarily only by them.
MM
2017-10-11 09:24:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Ah, so you think referendums are an expression of democracy?
They are the purest expression of democracy.
They are a device of dictators and demagogues. - Margaret Thatcher,
Clement Attlee.

You've seen how the referendum has split the country asunder. This
never happened after general elections, not even after Tony Blair won
a huge landslide.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 10:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Ah, so you think referendums are an expression of democracy?
They are the purest expression of democracy.
They are a device of dictators and demagogues. - Margaret Thatcher,
Clement Attlee.
No politician really likes referendums, especially conviction
politicians who are convinced they're right about everything. After
all, referendums might tell them what the people they are supposed to
represent really want. And that would be most unwelcome, wouldn't it?
Post by MM
You've seen how the referendum has split the country asunder. This
never happened after general elections, not even after Tony Blair won
a huge landslide.
A huge landslide means that a large majority of people are in favour of
it. It's rather unlikely therefore to 'split the country asunder'.
MM
2017-10-09 09:31:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:25:33 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.
Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - anerefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Which 75% of MPs didn't agree with and had every legal right to block
Article 50. That's why Gina Miller brought the case, to give
Parliament a chance to find some balls. Sadly, it did not. However,
now that the Tory government is only hanging in there on a wing and a
prayer (to the DUP), MPs are starting to assert their true position,
and as for the HoL, it's very likely that it will throw a major
spanner in the works. I therefore live in hope that this absolutely
mad dash for Brexit will be halted eventually.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
But it's crystal clear that it is NOT the will of the people. Merely
of 17 million of them in a total voter count of 46 million. A majority
of 1.2 million votes would be entering hung parliament terriitory if
it had been a general election. It is ludicrous for the country to
make such a massive change based on 1.2 million votes. In the 1975
referendum the majority was nearly 9 million!

The Tories are desperate to make the result stick, not for any
honourable reasons, but to protect their party from disintegrating,
which would otherwise surely happen, and may still might.

Labour ~say~ they're desperate to make the result stick, but only to
win votes at the next election, after which we would be told how it's
vital to remain in the single market and the custons union. Starmer
has said that often enough. Given that we now know that the EU is
having private talks with Labour, they may be concocting some scheme
to grant the UK a dispensation on freedom of movement while remaining
in the single market/customs union. Call it "Thatcher lite".

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 13:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:25:33 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.
Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - anerefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Which 75% of MPs didn't agree with and had every legal right to block
Article 50.
Of course they did. That's democracy. But they didn't block it. In
fact a massive 81% of them voted to trigger it.

That's a bit of a far cry from your alleged 75% the other way.

So, we have to decide whether your made up figure is correct, or the one
from the parliamentary vote which is when it really mattered.

Ooh, tough one.
Post by MM
That's why Gina Miller brought the case, to give
Parliament a chance to find some balls. Sadly, it did not. However,
now that the Tory government is only hanging in there on a wing and a
prayer (to the DUP), MPs are starting to assert their true position,
and as for the HoL, it's very likely that it will throw a major
spanner in the works. I therefore live in hope that this absolutely
mad dash for Brexit will be halted eventually.
Keep clutching at straws. It's all you've got.
Post by MM
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
But it's crystal clear that it is NOT the will of the people. Merely
of 17 million of them in a total voter count of 46 million. A majority
of 1.2 million votes would be entering hung parliament terriitory if
it had been a general election. It is ludicrous for the country to
make such a massive change based on 1.2 million votes. In the 1975
referendum the majority was nearly 9 million!
Do you also re-run the Battle of Hastings time and time again with toy
soldiers hoping one day you'll come up with a different result? It
certainly sounds like it.
MM
2017-10-10 08:39:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:25:33 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.
Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - anerefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Which 75% of MPs didn't agree with and had every legal right to block
Article 50.
Of course they did. That's democracy. But they didn't block it. In
fact a massive 81% of them voted to trigger it.
That's a bit of a far cry from your alleged 75% the other way.
So, we have to decide whether your made up figure is correct, or the one
from the parliamentary vote which is when it really mattered.
Ooh, tough one.
Post by MM
That's why Gina Miller brought the case, to give
Parliament a chance to find some balls. Sadly, it did not. However,
now that the Tory government is only hanging in there on a wing and a
prayer (to the DUP), MPs are starting to assert their true position,
and as for the HoL, it's very likely that it will throw a major
spanner in the works. I therefore live in hope that this absolutely
mad dash for Brexit will be halted eventually.
Keep clutching at straws. It's all you've got.
Post by MM
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
But it's crystal clear that it is NOT the will of the people. Merely
of 17 million of them in a total voter count of 46 million. A majority
of 1.2 million votes would be entering hung parliament terriitory if
it had been a general election. It is ludicrous for the country to
make such a massive change based on 1.2 million votes. In the 1975
referendum the majority was nearly 9 million!
Do you also re-run the Battle of Hastings time and time again with toy
soldiers hoping one day you'll come up with a different result? It
certainly sounds like it.
No, because the Battle of Hastings is long gone. Brexit is still very
much an ongoing battle and will be so for a good many years yet.
You've seen how far we've got in 16 months. Nowhere.

MM
Fredxxx
2017-10-09 14:43:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 09:25:33 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
To decide things.
They decided to leave the EU by triggering Article 50.
No, they didn't. *Brexiters* decided.
No they didn't.
Cameron said we would leave if that was the result of the referendum
(oblivious to the fact that he didn't really have authority to do this
unless it was finally approved by Parliament). He then buggered off, and
left Theresa May holding the Brexit Baby (which, strangely, she seemed
extremely keen to do). TM also thought she could trigger Article 50
without further reference to Parliament, but as we know, the courts
disagreed. As it turned out, despite their personal opinions, a large
majority of MPs decided to follow their party line and respect the
popular result of the referendum - anerefore voted to allow the
government to initiate the process of leaving the EU - which,
eventually, they did.
Post by MM
The MPs merely rubber-stamped
Article 50 as a formality,
It wasn't a formality. It was a vital step in the legal process.
Which 75% of MPs didn't agree with and had every legal right to block
Article 50. That's why Gina Miller brought the case, to give
Parliament a chance to find some balls. Sadly, it did not. However,
now that the Tory government is only hanging in there on a wing and a
prayer (to the DUP), MPs are starting to assert their true position,
and as for the HoL, it's very likely that it will throw a major
spanner in the works. I therefore live in hope that this absolutely
mad dash for Brexit will be halted eventually.
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by MM
though why the 75% who didn't want to did
so, beats me. I can only put it down to their venal addiction to a job
at the cost of doing the honourable thing, which as representatives of
their consituencies they're supposed to do.
I do think you're being a bit harsh. IIRC, both Tory and Labour said
they would respect The Will Of The People - which they did.
But it's crystal clear that it is NOT the will of the people. Merely
of 17 million of them in a total voter count of 46 million.
This is where you are wrong 16 million voted to remain, 30 million
wanted to leave or didn't give a hoot.

A sound basis to leave, certainly better than any to Remoan.
James Harris
2017-10-07 10:29:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 13:31:35 +0100, James Harris
Post by James Harris
You said that in your opinion MPs should decide. They decided. You got
your wish.
Er, MPs have votes in Parliament all the time.
Yep, and they made their decision.
--
James Harris
pamela
2017-10-06 13:15:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Wed, 04 Oct 2017 12:09:56 +0100, pamela
When the economy isn't booming this group probably suffers
more than most. Sticking in the mud like this (and often
wallowing in nationalism, xenophobia, living in the Imperial
past, and so on) isn't healthy but there it is.
You are going to have to explain how the fact that only a
very small number of business is the UK exporting to the EU
is a consequence of people "living in the Imperial past".
Or come to that, a consequence of nationalism or xenophobia?
I struggle to follow your logic. I really do. Could you point
out where I said the things you're asking me about.
I am just reading what you wrote but I understand you are not
able to justify allegations of "living in the Imperial past"
because it is unjustifiable.
It is just what people say when they cannot make another
argument.
Are you trying to suggest that the bosses of the
approximately 90% of all UK business that do not export to
the EU do not so so because they have funny ideas about
dealing with foreigners?
Are you counting services as well as goods?
All companies.
Are you counting companies that are in the supply chains of
businesses which export to the EU?
All companies.
A large number of UK companies do not do business in the EU
because their primary customers are in the UK.
I know.
I tend to suspect that a relatively large part of the
pro-Brexit camp is made up of these people.
The bosses of businesses who do not export? Don't think the
numbers quite add up.
Which numbers are you referring to?
You said - "I tend to suspect that a relatively large part of
the pro- Brexit camp is made up of these people." These people
being those who's companies that "do not take advantage of our
EU membership".
There aren't any numbers there at all! *puzzled*
pamela
2017-10-06 15:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017 16:49:07 +0100, Ian Jackson
Not having heavy construction and dark Satanic mills at
the end of
your
garden is, I suggest, a good thing, not a bad one. And
it's a mark of progression not of decline.
But you tell that to the guy from Sunderland who blames
the EU for
the
disappearance of shipbuilding from Wearside and coalmining
from County Durham
Ian, am I right that you get your view of Brexit from
comments of ad-hoc people? I'd suggest that if you do that
then you won't get a representative view.
I only get to hear (and occasionally understand) what the
population thinks from they say when they are interviewed on
the radio and TV, and when they phone in to phone-in radio
stations. However, after a year or so, I guess I've heard most
of why a fair cross-section of the population voted the way
they did.
Obviously not all Brexiteers think like the Sunderland chap -
but it's not unreasonable to assume that a certain proportion
do, But, of course, varying proportions of the others will
have quite different reasons.
But we have no idea how big "a certain proportion" is. You heard
this particular chap speak that day so assume he is not alone
but in all this time you have not heard anyone else say the
same. Surely that hints he is in fact quite unusual?
While few of us might know about some bloke who voted 'out'
because his Greek dentist hurt a bit when he had a tooth
pulled out, by now I think we're all now pretty familiar with
the basic set of reasons why most voters voted the way they
did. I therefore find it strange why anyone should respond to
innocuous comments about how people voted with essentially a
"You can't possibly know. What you hear is probably not
representative".
The "you can't possibly know" comments are usually in response
to your specific assertions that you can't possibly know to be
true. :-)
I agree we have a decent idea of the core reasons for voting
leave and the core reasons for voting remain but what we have no
idea about is the proportion of people who voted a particular
way for which of those core reasons.
Or the number of people who voted one way or the other for no
reason at all - just because that is the way it took them on the
day.
This discussion has become far too silly to continue with. You
are intent on disagreeing simply for sake of it, and as far as
you are concerned, I have better things to do than to waste any
more time on the subject.
I too feel in some of my recent discussions with Yellow that she
is just arguing for the sake of it.

I find she tries to put words in my mouth by asserting what I
posted must mean I adhere to some extreme statemente of hers. As
I never said what she wants to argue about, I just ignore her at
those times.
MM
2017-10-07 07:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
I find she tries to put words in my mouth by asserting what I
posted must mean I adhere to some extreme statemente of hers. As
I never said what she wants to argue about, I just ignore her at
those times.
She just shows the stubborn attitude so typical of Brexiters.

Pilgrim Fathers: "Right, see ya, we're off to the New World!"

Brexiters: "Why on earth would you want to do that? You'll fall off
the edge!"

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 08:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by pamela
I find she tries to put words in my mouth by asserting what I
posted must mean I adhere to some extreme statemente of hers. As
I never said what she wants to argue about, I just ignore her at
those times.
She just shows the stubborn attitude so typical of Brexiters.
Pilgrim Fathers: "Right, see ya, we're off to the New World!"
Brexiters: "Why on earth would you want to do that? You'll fall off
the edge!"
Yet another of your analogies that doesn't work.

The Pilgrim Fathers were the ones who decided to leave. It would be the
Remainers who would have claimed they'd fall off the edge.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 18:57:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
--
Mary had a little sheep
She took it to her bed to sleep
Mary found it was a ram
Mary had a little lamb.
Yellow
2017-10-06 19:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
How is it fair not to get to choose who represents you?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 20:00:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
How is it fair not to get to choose who represents you?
Who care who it is, as long as I get the party I voted for.

-- =

If you own a =A33,000 machine gun and a =A35,000 rocket launcher, but yo=
u can't afford shoes, you may be a Muslim.
The Peeler
2017-10-06 20:57:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:00:55 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
How is it fair not to get to choose who represents you?
Who care who it is, as long as I get the party I voted for.
He's obviously an idiot as he is dumb enough to engage in a "discussion"
with you! <BG>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's from (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) deep thinking:
"Prisoners of war is a stupid idea. Just kill them. Why save the enemy?
You're working for the wrong side!"
MID: <***@red.lan>
R. Mark Clayton
2017-10-07 10:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
How is it fair not to get to choose who represents you?
Who care who it is, as long as I get the party I voted for.
People like you deserve MPs like Neil Hamilton or Phil Woolas...
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 18:35:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
How is it fair not to get to choose who represents you?
Who care who it is, as long as I get the party I voted for.
People like you deserve MPs like Neil Hamilton or Phil Woolas...
All MPs from one party are pretty similar.
--
Paper clips are the larval stage of coat hangers.
The Peeler
2017-10-08 19:41:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:35:33 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
All MPs from one party are pretty similar.
And none of them is a sick idiot like you!
--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) abnormal sociopathic
world:
"Your eyes have something called an iris, you can't damage them looking at
the sun. An eclipse is dimmer than the normal sun, so even safer. I never
used any specs the last time 10 years ago and my eyes are fine."
MID: <***@red.lan>
The Peeler
2017-10-06 20:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 19:57:26 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Absolute utter bullshit.
Those three words would make a good nym for you, Birdbrain! LOL
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's from (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"Anybody striking should be fired immediately. If you don't like your
job, work somewhere else. If you can't find anywhere better, your job
isn't as bad as you thought."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Norman Wells
2017-10-06 20:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.

How do you define it?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 21:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them has the most power. Simple.
--
If you had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that word would be "meetings."
Norman Wells
2017-10-06 21:17:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting.  The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power.  Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-07 01:24:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party. The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat. Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
--
Flanders and Swann on MOT tests:
Our car is getting a bit old, it'll have to be tested soon.
You know they started these tests for 10-year-old cars, they brought it down to six, now five, they'll bring it down to three.
There's even been some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 08:14:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting.  The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power.  Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit.  In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.

Just as you wanted.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 18:38:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't. It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most areas gets into power. If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat, they get no MPs. Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of the seats each. They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has twice the number of votes, gets none.
--
There was a blackout in my neighborhood last night.
I had to shoot him before he stole everything.
The Peeler
2017-10-08 19:41:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:38:20 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH sick idiot's sick drivel>
--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"I like driving fast and scaring people".
"If the guy behind me has his lights on too bright. I let him past
then tailgate him with my full beam on until he switches his off".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)
Norman Wells
2017-10-08 20:13:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting.  The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power.  Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit.  In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't.  It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most
areas gets into power.  If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat,
they get no MPs.  Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of
the seats each.  They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has
twice the number of votes, gets none.
When was the last time you saw just a two horse race in a parliamentary
election?

And what is the statistical probability of one party getting 40% of the
vote in every constituemcy?

Do get real.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 20:15:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't. It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most
areas gets into power. If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat,
they get no MPs. Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of
the seats each. They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has
twice the number of votes, gets none.
When was the last time you saw just a two horse race in a parliamentary
election?
Every UK election, Conservative and Labour.
Post by Norman Wells
And what is the statistical probability of one party getting 40% of the
vote in every constituemcy?
Do get real.
Look it up, UKIP got 2 seats with 3 times the vote of SNP, who got 50 seats, it's a farce.
--
A man was sunbathing naked at the beach.
For the sake of decency and civility, and to keep it from getting sunburnt, he had a hat over his private parts.
A woman walks past and says, snickering, "If you were a gentleman you'd lift your hat."
He raised an eyebrow and replied, "If you were better looking it would lift itself."
Norman Wells
2017-10-08 20:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 10:13:25 +0100, Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting.  The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power.  Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit.  In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't.  It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most
areas gets into power.  If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat,
they get no MPs.  Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of
the seats each.  They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has
twice the number of votes, gets none.
When was the last time you saw just a two horse race in a parliamentary
election?
Every UK election, Conservative and Labour.
We're talking about in constituencies.

I cannot recall a single one where there were only two candidates.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
And what is the statistical probability of one party getting 40% of the
vote in every constituemcy?
Do get real.
Look it up, UKIP got 2 seats with 3 times the vote of SNP, who got 50 seats, it's a farce.
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 21:14:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 10:13:25 +0100, Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't. It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most
areas gets into power. If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat,
they get no MPs. Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of
the seats each. They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has
twice the number of votes, gets none.
When was the last time you saw just a two horse race in a parliamentary
election?
Every UK election, Conservative and Labour.
We're talking about in constituencies.
I cannot recall a single one where there were only two candidates.
You really don't have a clue do you? At the last election UKIP got THREE times the number of votes as SNP, yet they got two seats versus SNP's 50. Fucked up system, end of story.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
And what is the statistical probability of one party getting 40% of the
vote in every constituemcy?
Do get real.
Look it up, UKIP got 2 seats with 3 times the vote of SNP, who got 50
seats, it's a farce.
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It's not a belief. If a party gets more votes, they should get more MPs.
--
Would you like to join me in a drink?
Do you think we'll both fit?
The Peeler
2017-10-08 21:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 22:14:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH another load of the usual idiotic drivel>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"I have never seen a washing machine which can handle a sofa."
MID: <***@red.lan>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"Nothing beats a proper loo brush."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 07:52:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:46:19 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 10:13:25 +0100, Norman Wells
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit.  PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting.  The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power.  Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit.  In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
And the party that obtained the most votes has the most power.
Just as you wanted.
But they don't.  It's chance, the party who is most popular in the most
areas gets into power.  If one party gets 40% of the vote in every seat,
they get no MPs.  Then 3 other parties get 60% of the vote in a third of
the seats each.  They all get lots of seats yet the first party who has
twice the number of votes, gets none.
When was the last time you saw just a two horse race in a parliamentary
election?
Every UK election, Conservative and Labour.
We're talking about in constituencies.
I cannot recall a single one where there were only two candidates.
You really don't have a clue do you?   At the last election UKIP got
THREE times the number of votes as SNP, yet they got two seats versus
SNP's 50.  Fucked up system, end of story.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
And what is the statistical probability of one party getting 40% of the
vote in every constituemcy?
Do get real.
Look it up, UKIP got 2 seats with 3 times the vote of SNP, who got 50
seats, it's a farce.
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing.  It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It's not a belief.  If a party gets more votes, they should get more MPs.
That's a belief.
MM
2017-10-09 08:14:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?

Is it fairer?
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 08:44:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.

However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does. It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament. It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs. It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.

But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.

Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none. So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 20:01:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.
However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does. It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament. It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs. It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.
But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.
Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none. So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
Nothing subjective about it. The power of the party and whether it gets in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who voted for them.
--
Pilot to tower, pilot to tower, I am 300 miles from land, 600 feet over water, and running out of fuel, please instruct!
Tower to pilot, tower to pilot, repeat after me: "Our Father, which art in heaven....."
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 20:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.
However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does.  It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament.  It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs.  It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.
But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.
Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none.  So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
Nothing subjective about it.  The power of the party and whether it gets
in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who
voted for them.
How can that be then? Should the Tories be in government on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays with Labour running the show on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, just to be fair? Or what?

If not, the side that loses, regardless of how many seats it has, has no
exercisable power at all.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 21:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.
However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does. It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament. It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs. It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.
But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.
Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none. So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
Nothing subjective about it. The power of the party and whether it gets
in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who
voted for them.
How can that be then? Should the Tories be in government on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays with Labour running the show on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, just to be fair? Or what?
If not, the side that loses, regardless of how many seats it has, has no
exercisable power at all.
No, the winning party should be the one with the most votes, end of story.

Take 500 people in a room. They're to decide whether to do A or B. Why on earth would you artificially divide those 500 people into 10 groups of 50 and count the votes seperately, discarding votes here and there? First past the post is THROWING AWAY votes. It's discarding the wishes of some of the population. That's not an opinion, it's a fact, the system is WRONG.
--
In an attempt to attract a more modern, hipper, high tech type of customer, Campbell's Alphabet Soup now comes with spell check.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 22:13:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:58:01 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH yet more of the idiot's inevitable drivel unread>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) usual sociopathic
bullshit:
"Does your dog leave shit everywhere in your house because it hasn't wiped
it's arse? Do you allow it to urinate on people's walls and hedges like
most dog walkers?"
MID: <***@red.lan>
MM
2017-10-10 08:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:58:01 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
That's not an opinion, it's a fact, the system is WRONG.
Absolutely, but you'll never get ole Norm to admit it.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Nothing subjective about it.  The power of the party and whether it gets
in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who
voted for them.
How can that be then?  Should the Tories be in government on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays with Labour running the show on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, just to be fair?  Or what?
If not, the side that loses, regardless of how many seats it has, has no
exercisable power at all.
No, the winning party should be the one with the most votes, end of story.
Take 500 people in a room.  They're to decide whether to do A or B.  Why
on earth would you artificially divide those 500 people into 10 groups
of 50 and count the votes seperately, discarding votes here and there?
Maybe because the room won't hold 500 people. Scale it up to 45 million
people and you have to divide them down into a suitable number of
representatives who can fit in the room.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
First past the post is THROWING AWAY votes.  It's discarding the wishes
of some of the population.  That's not an opinion, it's a fact, the
system is WRONG.
All losing votes are thrown away when it comes to decision making. Even
if the popular vote in the country was 60% Conservative and 40% Labour,
and you had a parliament whose members were in exactly that same
proportion, as you presumably would with proportional representation,
the Conservatives would win every vote. A Labour MP would have no
influence or power. Every Labour vote would thus be wasted and thrown away.

You can't avoid it.
MM
2017-10-10 08:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.
However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does.  It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament.  It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs.  It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.
But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.
Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none.  So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
Nothing subjective about it.  The power of the party and whether it gets
in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who
voted for them.
How can that be then? Should the Tories be in government on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays with Labour running the show on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, just to be fair? Or what?
If not, the side that loses, regardless of how many seats it has, has no
exercisable power at all.
That is not a sensible reply. It is the reply of someone who cannot
admit that PR is a fairer system of voting and therefore introduces
red herrings like you just did with the Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays thing. This is as nonsenical as having vehicles drive on the
left on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and on the right on other
days.

Why don't you have the guts to admit you're wrong when it's patently
obvious that you are?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:38:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
That's a belief.
Okay, so why do you believe FPTP is a better system?
'Better' is entirely a subjective judgement.
However, it tends to give more polarised membership of the Commons,
leading to fewer coalitions than, say, Germany, where the electorate
never knows what it might end up with.
Post by MM
Is it fairer?
'Fairer' is entirely a subjective judgement.
Post by MM
Does it give minor parties a chance of winning seats in Parliament?
Of course it does.  It's why Caroline Lucas is in parliament.  It's why
the LIbDems have 12 MPs.  It's why the SNP have lots of seats.
Post by MM
Does it fairly reflect a very wide cross-section of opinion across all
constituencies?
'Fairly' is entirely a subjective judgement.
But we have a wide cross-section of opinion in parliament under the
present system, so the answer to your question is obviously yes.
Anyway, even if we had proportional representation, we'd still end up
with a government that holds all the power and an opposition that
effectively has none.  So, it would still be 'unfair', wouldn't it?
Nothing subjective about it.  The power of the party and whether it gets
in or not should be precisely correlated to the number of people who
voted for them.
How can that be then? Should the Tories be in government on Mondays,
Wednesdays and Fridays with Labour running the show on Tuesdays and
Thursdays, just to be fair? Or what?
If not, the side that loses, regardless of how many seats it has, has no
exercisable power at all.
That is not a sensible reply. It is the reply of someone who cannot
admit that PR is a fairer system of voting and therefore introduces
red herrings like you just did with the Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays thing. This is as nonsenical as having vehicles drive on the
left on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, and on the right on other
days.
Of course it's nonsensical. That was the whole point of my mentioning it.

Regardless of how 'fairly' you elect your MPs, the losing party or
parties will still have no power in parliament, and their views will
therefore be discounted in any policy decisions.

It's how it works.

Proportional representation won't make any difference to that.
Post by MM
Why don't you have the guts to admit you're wrong when it's patently
obvious that you are?
It wouldn't make any difference to the end result, so it isn't worth
bothering with.
MM
2017-10-11 09:11:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Proportional representation won't make any difference to that.
AfD v. UKIP
94 1

Norman says: "Proportional representation won't make any difference to
that."

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 09:48:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Proportional representation won't make any difference to that.
AfD v. UKIP
94 1
Norman says: "Proportional representation won't make any difference to
that."
Perhaps you'd tell us then what power AfD has in the German parliament.

It's 'none' isn't it? They lost.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 21:14:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 21:01:24 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH all the sick troll shit>
--
More details from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic
"mind":
"If I wanted you to stab me with a knife and kill me, you should not
get into trouble for it".
"I would kill my sister if I thought I'd get away with it".
"I'm not what most people think of as human".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)
MM
2017-10-09 08:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 08:45:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 11:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
--
I have the world's oldest typewriter - it prints in pencil
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 14:30:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing.  It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament.  That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though.  They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.

Where's the power in that?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 15:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way. And with the tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
--
I like bagpipes. I also like violins when played with a hammer.
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 15:16:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional
representation is
a good thing.  It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament.  That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though.  They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
  And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it? I haven't seen it.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 20:00:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional
representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Then they're not doing their job properly.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it? I haven't seen it.
As you just said, the majority in each party vote the same way. If only the Tories vote for X, and Labour and the smaller parties all vote for Y, Y wins.
--
Dear Diary,
I've had this odd feeling for a little while. It's a surrealistically subconscious feeling that I was abducted by aliens and thoroughly probed.
Then a friend of mine told me they got me really drunk and dropped me off at a gay bar.
The bastards.
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 20:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional
representation is
a good thing.  It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament.  That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though.  They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Then they're not doing their job properly.
Why on earth not? They're paid to vote. They vote. That's their job,
at least where voting is concerned.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
 And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it?  I haven't seen it.
As you just said, the majority in each party vote the same way.  If only
the Tories vote for X, and Labour and the smaller parties all vote for
Y, Y wins.
Which is why it's been arranged so that it doesn't happen.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 21:55:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional
representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Then they're not doing their job properly.
Why on earth not? They're paid to vote. They vote. That's their job,
at least where voting is concerned.
They're meant to voice the concerns of their constituents.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it? I haven't seen it.
As you just said, the majority in each party vote the same way. If only
the Tories vote for X, and Labour and the smaller parties all vote for
Y, Y wins.
Which is why it's been arranged so that it doesn't happen.
Bullshit.
--
The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar
tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 22:14:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 22:55:51 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Bullshit.
That would be the perfect nym for you, you disgusting bullshit artist!
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL), the village idiot's,
sick drivel:
"I have 10 times more common sense than most."
Message-ID: <***@red.lan>
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:13:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional
representation is
a good thing.  It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament.  That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though.  They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Then they're not doing their job properly.
Why on earth not?  They're paid to vote.  They vote.  That's their job,
at least where voting is concerned.
They're meant to voice the concerns of their constituents.
Which I'm sure they do. They want to be re-elected when the time comes,
after all.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
 And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it?  I haven't seen it.
As you just said, the majority in each party vote the same way.  If only
the Tories vote for X, and Labour and the smaller parties all vote for
Y, Y wins.
Which is why it's been arranged so that it doesn't happen.
Bullshit.
What do *you* think the purpose of the Conservative-DUP agreement is?
MM
2017-10-11 09:12:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
What do *you* think the purpose of the Conservative-DUP agreement is?
To save Theresa May's arse from yet another humiliating defeat.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 10:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
What do *you* think the purpose of the Conservative-DUP agreement is?
To save Theresa May's arse from yet another humiliating defeat.
It's actually an agreement between the parties, not individuals.

That aside, it means that Labour is not likely to win any significant
votes in Parliament, and they are therefore powerless. They lost the
election, you see. It's how it works.

By the way, if you stopped snipping everything that gives context, it
might help.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-01 19:36:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
What do *you* think the purpose of the Conservative-DUP agreement is?
To save ***Theresa May's arse*** from yet another humiliating defeat.
I don't wish to think about the bit between the ***s ever again.
--
If "con" is the opposite of "pro", then what is the opposite of progress?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-11-01 19:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
And Labour loses every time.
Where's the power in that?
You're assuming everyone in one party votes the same way.
As they do, normally.
Then they're not doing their job properly.
Why on earth not? They're paid to vote. They vote. That's their job,
at least where voting is concerned.
They're meant to voice the concerns of their constituents.
Which I'm sure they do. They want to be re-elected when the time comes,
after all.
What makes you think the constituents' wishes and the party's wishes are always the same?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
And with the
tories not having a majority, it's even more likely Labour get their way.
Is it? I haven't seen it.
As you just said, the majority in each party vote the same way. If only
the Tories vote for X, and Labour and the smaller parties all vote for
Y, Y wins.
Which is why it's been arranged so that it doesn't happen.
Bullshit.
What do *you* think the purpose of the Conservative-DUP agreement is?
If the parties are similar in beliefs, it makes the winning party bigger. Fuck knows how it worked with the Con/LibDem coalition we had before. You can't get two more opposing parties. Bribes must have been used.
--
Girl with skirt up run faster than boy with trousers down!!
The Peeler
2017-10-09 21:15:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 21:00:21 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH more of the usual troll shit>
--
More of Scottish wanker Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL)
sociopathic "thinking":
"No, law abiding fuckwits follow the speed limit. Sensible drivers ignore
it and go slower or faster than it, according to the conditions."
MID: <***@red.lan>
The Peeler
2017-10-09 16:46:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 16:02:28 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH idiot's drivel>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "insights":
"Because punching someone really isn't that serious. Grow up."
MID: <***@red.lan>
The Peeler
2017-10-09 16:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:58:18 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Each seat gets to vote on parliamentary issues.
Are legally incapacitated morons like you allowed to vote at all, Birdbrain?
--
Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") about himself:
"I can sleep outside in a temperature of -20C wearing only shorts".
"I once took a dump behind some bushes and slid down a hill to wipe my
arse".
(Courtesy of Mr Pounder)
MM
2017-10-10 08:05:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
I'll rewrite that for you:

Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though, because they're not the government.

What is wrong with my rewrite?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though, because they're not the government.
What is wrong with my rewrite?
Nothing at all. Why did you bother?
MM
2017-10-11 09:14:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though, because they're not the government.
What is wrong with my rewrite?
Nothing at all.
Thanks for confirming that Labour are not in government, hence they
have no power. It's kind of a DUH moment, isn't it?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 09:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
It's only a farce if you already believe proportional representation is
a good thing. It doesn't prove that it's a good thing.
It is a good thing because it more fairly reflects the views of much
of the electorate and gives them the seats in Parliament to change
things democratically. Our FPTP system does not do that.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though. They're not the government.
Labour has lots of seats in Parliament. That doesn't give them any
power to do anything though, because they're not the government.
What is wrong with my rewrite?
Nothing at all.
Thanks for confirming that Labour are not in government, hence they
have no power. It's kind of a DUH moment, isn't it?
All you're doing is confirming that whoever loses in any election,
whether by first past the post or proportional representation, ends up
with no power. It doesn't matter in the least how they arrive there;
one system of getting there is no better than any other.

Why then advocate PR?
The Peeler
2017-10-08 20:44:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 21:15:58 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH sociopath's blather unread>
--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) abnormal sociopathic
world:
"Your eyes have something called an iris, you can't damage them looking at
the sun. An eclipse is dimmer than the normal sun, so even safer. I never
used any specs the last time 10 years ago and my eyes are fine."
MID: <***@red.lan>
MM
2017-10-09 08:09:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.

In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.

That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.

Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 08:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
It still doesn't mean they have any power though.
Post by MM
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies.
No, just th majority.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 11:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,09=
9
Post by Norman Wells
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative f=FCr Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
It still doesn't mean they have any power though.
Of course it does. What do you think those 94 seats do?
Post by Norman Wells
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies.
No, just th majority.
No, it's a fake representation of majority. It's chance (or more likely=
manipulated by the party already in power by changing the shape of the =
constituencies) whether you have enough voters in each constituency to w=
in a seat. There could be for example a party that gets 49% of the vote=
in every single constituency in the UK. They would have no seats at al=
l. Then two other parties who have 51% of the vote in half the constitu=
encies each get a similar number of seats. One of those wins, yet they =
have half the number of voters as the party with no seats.

-- =

Women are like small children. You bring a new one home and the ones al=
ready there resent it.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 16:05:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:57:41 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH sociopath's usual drivel unread>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL), the village idiot's,
sick drivel:
"I have 10 times more common sense than most."
Message-ID: <***@red.lan>
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 11:54:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099=
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative f=FCr Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method=
calculated to producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is compl=
etely correct.

-- =

Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 14:33:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to  producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itself
operates a first past the post system. Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.

And that's always the government.

You can't get away from it.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 15:01:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,0=
99
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative f=FCr Deutschland=
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a meth=
od
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
calculated to producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory o=
r
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itsel=
f
operates a first past the post system. Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.
Really? I thought we had (say) 200 elected MPs and they have a simple v=
ote. Over 100 passes the motion.
And that's always the government.
You can't get away from it.
That could be changed as easily as the election system.

-- =

Is a "speed hump" when you have to get it done before your wife comes ho=
me?
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 15:19:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to  producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itself
operates a first past the post system.  Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.
Really?  I thought we had (say) 200 elected MPs and they have a simple
vote.  Over 100 passes the motion.
Which is about as good an example of first past the post as you could
hope to get.
Post by Norman Wells
And that's always the government.
You can't get away from it.
That could be changed as easily as the election system.
Er, how?
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-09 19:02:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881=
,099
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative f=FCr Deutschla=
nd
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the=
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a me=
thod
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
calculated to producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory=
or
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament its=
elf
Post by Norman Wells
operates a first past the post system. Whoever wins a parliamentary=
vote gets its way.
Really? I thought we had (say) 200 elected MPs and they have a simpl=
e
Post by Norman Wells
vote. Over 100 passes the motion.
Which is about as good an example of first past the post as you could
hope to get.
No posts within parliament, just a simple vote from 200 people. Same as=
all 200 people in a street placing a vote on whether to build something=
for the community or not. No posts involved.
Post by Norman Wells
And that's always the government.
You can't get away from it.
That could be changed as easily as the election system.
Er, how?
Not that it needs changing as it isn't first past the post, but clearly =
it's simpler to change as it's a VASTLY smaller vote.

-- =

Beelzebug (n.): Satan in the form of a mosquito that gets into your bedr=
oom at three in the morning and cannot be cast out.
The Peeler
2017-10-09 19:39:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 20:02:18 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH the blathering idiot's never ending idiotic drivel>
--
Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) sociopathic "mind" at work:
"I'm one of the few sensible people left"
MID: <***@red.lan>
Norman Wells
2017-10-09 20:07:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to  producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itself
operates a first past the post system.  Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.
Really?  I thought we had (say) 200 elected MPs and they have a simple
vote.  Over 100 passes the motion.
Which is about as good an example of first past the post as you could
hope to get.
No posts within parliament, just a simple vote from 200 people.
A 'simple vote' is exactly what first past the post is.

If you disagree, you'd better explaion what you mean, because at the
moment you're not making any sense.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Same as
all 200 people in a street placing a vote on whether to build something
for the community or not.  No posts involved.
On the contrary. The post is 'more than the other lot'.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
And that's always the government.
You can't get away from it.
That could be changed as easily as the election system.
Er, how?
Not that it needs changing as it isn't first past the post, but clearly
it's simpler to change as it's a VASTLY smaller vote.
You seem to be completely confused. Or ignorant.
MM
2017-10-10 08:12:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to  producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itself
operates a first past the post system. Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.
PR voting systems are widely used across the UK and the EU. It's a
proven fact that they work.

Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-10 08:25:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Do get real.
In the First Past The Post 2015 general election UKIP polled 3,881,099
votes which was 12.6% of total votes. They won one seat.
In the recent German election, conducted under a system of
proportional representation, the party Alternative für Deutschland
polled 12.6% and won 94 seats.
That is what getting real means: getting real democracy.
Our FPTP system produces a sham result that does not represent the
wishes of all voters in most constituencies. Therefore, it is a method
calculated to  producing a sham democracy that favours either Tory or
Labour.
I have never seen a sensible post from you before, but this one is
completely correct.
Whatever system you have for electing individual MPs, Parliament itself
operates a first past the post system. Whoever wins a parliamentary
vote gets its way.
PR voting systems are widely used across the UK and the EU. It's a
proven fact that they work.
After a fashion. Like all systems.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.

Unless you have the Conservatives in power Mondays, Wednesdays and
Fridays, with labour on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I can't see a way of
doing it though.
MM
2017-10-11 09:17:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-11 10:02:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?
If you didn't snip everything you find too difficult to deal with, you'd
know.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
MM
2017-10-13 09:23:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?
If you didn't snip everything you find too difficult to deal with, you'd
know.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Does any sentence beginning with "could" look like a suggestion to
you?

For example, "Could mobile phones present a danger when used while
driving?"

Does that suggest I am advocating the use of mobile phones while
driving?

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-13 09:34:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?
If you didn't snip everything you find too difficult to deal with, you'd
know.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Does any sentence beginning with "could" look like a suggestion to
you?
For example, "Could mobile phones present a danger when used while
driving?"
Does that suggest I am advocating the use of mobile phones while
driving?
You're suggesting the possibility.

I'll take it that you can't think how.
MM
2017-10-15 09:26:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?
If you didn't snip everything you find too difficult to deal with, you'd
know.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Does any sentence beginning with "could" look like a suggestion to
you?
For example, "Could mobile phones present a danger when used while
driving?"
Does that suggest I am advocating the use of mobile phones while
driving?
You're suggesting the possibility.
I'll take it that you can't think how.
That's right. I am not advocating the use of mobile phones while
driving and made no suggestionto that effect.

Glad you agree now.

MM
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-19 22:45:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Where did I suggest it?
If you didn't snip everything you find too difficult to deal with, you'd
know.
Post by MM
Could a PR system be designed for MPs voting in the House of Commons?
You're the one suggesting it. So, you tell us.
Does any sentence beginning with "could" look like a suggestion to
you?
For example, "Could mobile phones present a danger when used while
driving?"
Does that suggest I am advocating the use of mobile phones while
driving?
You're suggesting the possibility.
I'll take it that you can't think how.
He's suggesting nothing of the sort, he's asking a question. Please go back to school and take elementary English.
--
California lawmakers are now proposing an amendment that would allow 14 year olds a quarter vote and 16 year olds a half a vote in all state elections.
How stupid is this? Don't they have enough trouble counting WHOLE votes? How are they going to figure out fractions?!
The Peeler
2017-10-19 23:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 19 Oct 2017 23:45:27 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
He's suggesting nothing of the sort, he's asking a question. Please go
back to school and take elementary English.
Please shut your stupid gob finally, you endlessly squawking parrot!
--
Richard to pathetic wanker Hucker:
"You haven't bred?
Only useful thing you've done in your pathetic existence."
MID: <orvctf$l5m$***@gioia.aioe.org>
The Peeler
2017-10-09 16:05:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 12:54:48 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH idiot's blather>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"I have never seen a washing machine which can handle a sofa."
MID: <***@red.lan>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"Nothing beats a proper loo brush."
MID: <***@red.lan>
The Peeler
2017-10-07 10:10:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 02:24:31 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party.
The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat.
Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
Most voters (on the losing side) never get what THEY want, you driveling
idiot! That mechanism is inherent in ANY vote, Birdbrain!
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) usual sociopathic
bullshit:
"Does your dog leave shit everywhere in your house because it hasn't wiped
it's arse? Do you allow it to urinate on people's walls and hedges like
most dog walkers?"
MID: <***@red.lan>
Yellow
2017-10-07 11:33:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 02:24:31 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party. The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat. Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
Modern schooling for you, where children are taught that no one ever
loses. :-)
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 17:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 02:24:31 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
It's only 'fairer' because it's fairer according to PR.
And that's just a tad circular.
Absolute utter bullshit. PR is precisely fair to everyone.
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
That's what happens now, in every constituency.
Bullshit. In a constituency, 1000 people vote for say the green party. The green party gets nothing from that because they lose the seat. Those 1000 people get nothing from that vote.
Modern schooling for you, where children are taught that no one ever
loses. :-)
With PR, every vote makes a difference. The first past the post system throws away votes.
--
I think car alarms should be set to explode after two minutes.
That way, we either take out a car thief, or deprive a noise-polluting jerk of his wheels.
The Peeler
2017-10-08 19:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 18:44:12 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH>

Fuck off from this thread finally, you revolting attention whore!
--
DerbyDad03 addressing Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson" LOL):
"Frigging Idiot. Get the hell out of my thread."
MID: <4d907253-b3b9-40d4-be4d-***@googlegroups.com>
The Peeler
2017-10-06 21:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 22:07:14 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:
ryone.
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Norman Wells
Depends how you define 'fair'.
How do you define it?
By every vote counting. The party with the most people voting for them
has the most power. Simple.
Darn, did someone actually ASK for an IDIOT's opinion? <VBG>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson") deep thinking:
"I have never seen a washing machine which can handle a sofa."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Fredxxx
2017-10-06 20:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
I want to vote for a person not a party, with the ability to choose say
between Martin Bell and Neil Hamilton.
That is the same as how I feel. I know there are different methods of PR
but I think it is quite important that we can vote for the actual person
who will represent us.
The change I want is equal sized constituencies.
I am happy with STV since I still end up with an MP I might have voted for.

PR - no.
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 20:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:47:59 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
They're shooting themselves in the foot, because a
small party can never get in if everyone tactically votes.
PR is fairer to small parties.
I want to vote for a person not a party, with the ability to choose say
between Martin Bell and Neil Hamilton.
That is the same as how I feel. I know there are different methods of PR
but I think it is quite important that we can vote for the actual person
who will represent us.
The change I want is equal sized constituencies.
I am happy with STV since I still end up with an MP I might have voted for.
PR - no.
What has Scottish TeleVision to do with voting?
--
If Christians want us to believe in a Redeemer, let them act redeemed. -- Voltaire
The Peeler
2017-10-06 20:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:55 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
What has Scottish TeleVision to do with voting?
Take a guess, o retarded one!
--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange sociopathic
world:
"My head feels like it's stuffed with cotton wool. Sleep, chocolate, and
alcohol help for a short while."
MID: <***@red.lan>
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 20:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 16:07:01 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:11:22 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Because mental capacity is subjective. You might think Mr Smith is an utter fucking moron because of his beliefs, that doesn't mean he should have any less right to vote than you. And if you're going by IQ, why do you think more intelligent people can choose any better in a vote? If we only let the clever voters decide things, they'd choose stuff which favoured them, and everyone else could go jump. That isn't fair.
Indeed - half the problem we have here (and in the USA, and perhaps in
other EU countries too) is that people who are less able to represent
themselves or who the 'elite' believe have faulty view points, have been
disregarded.
Once, everyone was prepared to go with the flow because they believed
their interests would be served, at least to a fashion, by one political
party or another. But it changed a few years ago.
I do not know what triggered the change but (controversial!) it was the
year the public started voting on X-Factor for the act that really
pissed off the judges, ditching the ones who could actually sing[1], and
they kept on doing it week after week.
[1] Before anyone says "but none of them can sing" or whatever, that is
not the issue. :-)
People probably vote on X-Factor for a laugh, or because the singer is cute.
My observation is that they did not used to. They took it 'seriously'
and listened to the judges. And then one year, they didn't.
I said my opinion could be controversial. :-)
But it was just something I noticed at the time, because it was a step
change, and that lead me to start noticing it more and more.
Mmm, interesting thought isn't it. You could take it right back to the
original Pop Idol when I think Simon Cowell wasn't best pleased when we
voted for Will Young - who could sing. ( IMHO :-)) But maybe, later on,
it was when people were getting fed up of being told what to like? And
that trickled over into thinking for themselves about more serious things.
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
--
An elderly British gentleman of 83 arrived in Paris by plane. At the French
customs desk he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry-on
bag. 'You have been to France before, Monsieur?' the customs officer asked
sarcastically.
The elderly gentleman admitted he had been to France previously.
'Then you should know enough to 'ave your passport ready,' the customs
officer said. The elderly gentleman replied, 'The last time I was here, I
didn't have to show it.'
'Impossible! The British always have to show their passports on arrival in
France !'
The Man gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained;
'Well, when I came ashore on the Beach on D-Day in 1944, I couldn't find any
fucking Frenchmen to show it to...!!
The Peeler
2017-10-06 21:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but
you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Geezuz Christ ...why do ALL "discussions" always sound completely retarded
whenever you participate in them, Birdbrain?
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "insights":
"Trains are not a viable means of transport as they cannot stop quickly."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Yellow
2017-10-06 23:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.

I do however like this bit of his music -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-07 01:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
What's not cute about him?
Post by Yellow
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Strange, that looks nothing like Will Young:
Loading Image...
--
Flanders and Swann on MOT tests:
Our car is getting a bit old, it'll have to be tested soon.
You know they started these tests for 10-year-old cars, they brought it down to six, now five, they'll bring it down to three.
There's even been some talk of having them tested before they leave the factories."
kat
2017-10-07 09:45:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow",
but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and
heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
What's not cute about him?
Post by Yellow
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
http://www.glasgowvant.com/wp-content/uploads/will-young-glasgow.jpg
It looks like Will Young as he was back then!
--
kat
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
^..^<
The Peeler
2017-10-07 10:10:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 02:23:36 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH more of the endless insipid idiotic drivel>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "insights":
"Trains are not a viable means of transport as they cannot stop quickly."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Yellow
2017-10-07 11:32:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 02:23:36 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
What's not cute about him?
Post by Yellow
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
http://www.glasgowvant.com/wp-content/uploads/will-young-glasgow.jpg
It is definitely what he looked like at the time. :-)
kat
2017-10-07 09:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
It's all a matter of taste, isn't it. I don't think cuteness won it for
him, plenty people thought Gareth Gates cute.
Post by Yellow
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
I like a lot of his music, and he's done well over all too.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-08 18:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
It's all a matter of taste, isn't it. I don't think cuteness won it for
him, plenty people thought Gareth Gates cute.
Post by Yellow
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
I like a lot of his music, and he's done well over all too.
It's girly music.
--
There was a blackout in my neighborhood last night.
I had to shoot him before he stole everything.
The Peeler
2017-10-08 19:41:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 19:36:36 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by kat
I like a lot of his music, and he's done well over all too.
It's girly music.
Girls? The thing you can't have, wanker? <BG>
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "insights":
"Trains are not a viable means of transport as they cannot stop quickly."
MID: <***@red.lan>
Christie
2017-10-07 10:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?

When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU... :)
Yellow
2017-10-07 11:22:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:40:57 GMT, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?
When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU... :)
LOL!

I haven't thought of that. :-)
kat
2017-10-07 20:34:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:40:57 GMT, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?
When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU... :)
LOL!
I haven't thought of that. :-)
Ahead of his time. ;-)
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-07 22:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:40:57 GMT, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow", but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?
When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU... :)
LOL!
I haven't thought of that. :-)
Ahead of his time. ;-)
Has he had his testicles clamped with something? What a girly voice.
--
It's only premarital sex if you're going to get married.
kat
2017-10-07 22:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:40:57 GMT, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow",
but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and
heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?
When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU...  :)
LOL!
I haven't thought of that. :-)
Ahead of his time. ;-)
Has he had his testicles clamped with something?  What a girly voice.
is that why you find him cute?
--
kat
^..^<
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-07 23:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by kat
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
Post by kat
Post by Yellow
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 10:40:57 GMT, Christie
Post by Christie
Post by Yellow
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:02:15 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 00:36:41 +0100, James Wilkinson Sword
Will Young got to where he is because he's cute.
Not sure I would describe Will Young as "cute". But each to their own.
I've no idea if you're a man or a woman with a name like "Yellow",
but you can tell someone's cute even if you're the same sex and
heterosexual.
Of course, but I still wouldn't have used that word to describe Will
Young - myself.
I do however like this bit of his music -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbrSLLv0AlA
Why am I not surprised you like that?
When Will started I thought he was singing about wanting to leave the
EU... :)
LOL!
I haven't thought of that. :-)
Ahead of his time. ;-)
Has he had his testicles clamped with something? What a girly voice.
is that why you find him cute?
No.
--
Have you heard the slogan for Trojan's new "Stealth" Condom?
"They'll never see you coming."
The Peeler
2017-10-07 23:19:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 00:15:45 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by kat
is that why you find him cute?
No.
So, why are you such an idiot?
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) "insights":
"Trains are not a viable means of transport as they cannot stop quickly."
MID: <***@red.lan>
jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
2017-10-08 12:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 01:19:20 +0200, The Foreskin Peeler
<***@my.Grik.anus.invalid> wrote:

[FLUHS Grik skata]

Watch, it anus!

01:19:20 anus? SERIOUSLY, you obsessed demented Grik asshole???

Don't you got, anyone to GREEK you????

LOLOK!

Cheers!

RJ (preferred jew aliash)
- -

" I don't even have the heart to tell him I've never infested
Arizona."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he lied
from the very beginning, A jew scam, as expected

Iudaei orbem terrarum infestant.
- correct Latin

"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)

Illuc nisi Dei gratia vadam.
- Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe (? - )
The Peeler
2017-10-08 16:03:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Someone interested in studying the workings of a highly psychotic "mind"?
Post by jew pedophile Ron Jacobson (jew pedophile Baruch 'Barry' Shein's jew aliash)
On Sun, 8 Oct 2017 01:19:20 +0200, The Foreskin Peeler
[FLUHS Grik skata]
Watch, it anus!
01:19:20 anus? SERIOUSLY, you obsessed demented Grik asshole???
Don't you got, anyone to GREEK you????
LOLOK!
Cheers!
RJ (preferred jew aliash)
- -
" I don't even have the heart to tell him I've never infested
Arizona."
- Klaun Shittinb'ricks (1940 - ), acknowledging that he lied
from the very beginning, A jew scam, as expected
Iudaei orbem terrarum infestant.
- correct Latin
"Die Juden sind unser Unglück!"
- Heinrich von Treitschke (1834 - 1896)
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade
Unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Trade
Unionist. Then they came for the jews, and I did not speak out
because I did not give a shit. Then they came for me and there
wasn't a single commie bastard left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892 - 1984)
Illuc nisi Dei gratia vadam.
- Revd Terence Fformby-Smythe (? - )
BRUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!! Why, oh WHY, are ALL you nazis, ALWAYS,
without ANY exception, such LAUGHING STOCKS? LOL

Eh?
--
Retarded, anal, subnormal and extremely proud of it: our resident
psychopath, dumb serbian bitch G. Razovic (aka "The Rectum").
The Peeler
2017-10-07 22:54:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Oct 2017 23:37:17 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
the pathological attention whore of all the uk ngs, blathered again:

<FLUSH wanker's usual idiotic drivel>
--
More from Birdbrain Macaw's (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) abnormal sociopathic
world:
"Your eyes have something called an iris, you can't damage them looking at
the sun. An eclipse is dimmer than the normal sun, so even safer. I never
used any specs the last time 10 years ago and my eyes are fine."
MID: <***@red.lan>
James Wilkinson Sword
2017-10-06 20:03:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 05 Oct 2017 15:11:22 +0100, "James Wilkinson Sword"
Because mental capacity is subjective. You might think Mr Smith is an utter fucking moron
because of his beliefs, that doesn't mean he should have any less right to vote than you.
And if you're going by IQ, why do you think more intelligent people can choose any better in a vote?
If we only let the clever voters decide things, they'd choose stuff which favoured them,
and everyone else could go jump. That isn't fair.
What if he doesn't HAVE any beliefs and is a moron because of that?
Atheists are the least moronic people.
As to your last sentence, everyone could go jump OR they could try
just that little bit harder.
To what? Fit in with the crowd?
--
A woman brought an old picture of her dead husband, wearing a hat, to the photographer. She wanted to know if the photographer could remove the hat from the picture.
He convinced her he could easily do that, and asked her what side of his head her husband parted his hair on.
"I forgot," she said. "But you can see that for yourself when you take off his hat."
The Peeler
2017-10-06 21:01:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 06 Oct 2017 21:03:52 +0100, Birdbrain Macaw (now "James Wilkinson"),
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
What if he doesn't HAVE any beliefs and is a moron because of that?
Atheists are the least moronic people.
You prove, though your example, the opposite to be true, Birdbrain!
Post by James Wilkinson Sword
As to your last sentence, everyone could go jump OR they could try
just that little bit harder.
To what? Fit in with the crowd?
Prick.
--
More of Birdbrain Macaw's from (now "James Wilkinson" LOL) strange
sociopathic world:
"Anybody striking should be fired immediately. If you don't like your
job, work somewhere else. If you can't find anywhere better, your job
isn't as bad as you thought."
MID: <***@red.lan>
MM
2017-10-07 07:34:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 04:46:10 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
They're the ones of lower intelligence, who almost certainly voted Remain.
Except that there is unrefuted evidence to show that people having a
good, as opposed to poor, educational background voted remain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-education-higher-university-study-university-leave-eu-remain-voters-educated-a7881441.html
"The most dramatic split is along the lines of education. 70% of
voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to
Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in
the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to
50%."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/
MM
I think we have know this since the day after the referendum!
Yes, what a shame that people like Norman refuse to accept it.

I call it the 'flat-earth mentality'.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 08:00:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
On Fri, 6 Oct 2017 04:46:10 -0700 (PDT), "R. Mark Clayton"
They're the ones of lower intelligence, who almost certainly voted Remain.
Except that there is unrefuted evidence to show that people having a
good, as opposed to poor, educational background voted remain.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-education-higher-university-study-university-leave-eu-remain-voters-educated-a7881441.html
"The most dramatic split is along the lines of education. 70% of
voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to
Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in
the EU. Those with A levels and no degree were evenly split, 50% to
50%."
https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/27/how-britain-voted/
MM
I think we have know this since the day after the referendum!
Yes, what a shame that people like Norman refuse to accept it.
I call it the 'flat-earth mentality'.
It's actually called 'democracy'.
MM
2017-10-07 07:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
If MPs felt they had to endorse the will of the people freely expressed
in the referendum then they don't have any choice to ignore it now.
Of course they do! MPs can change their minds and vote another way,
just as ordinary voters can.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-07 08:11:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If MPs felt they had to endorse the will of the people freely expressed
in the referendum then they don't have any choice to ignore it now.
Of course they do! MPs can change their minds and vote another way,
just as ordinary voters can.
The vote in favour of triggering Article 50 was 498 to 114, ie over 81%
in favour and a massive majority of 384.

Tory and Labour policy is still to leave the EU.

The will of the people, freely expressed, is to leave the EU.

What on earth makes you think another vote by our representatives would
have any chance of reversing that?
MM
2017-10-08 07:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If MPs felt they had to endorse the will of the people freely expressed
in the referendum then they don't have any choice to ignore it now.
Of course they do! MPs can change their minds and vote another way,
just as ordinary voters can.
The vote in favour of triggering Article 50 was 498 to 114, ie over 81%
in favour and a massive majority of 384.
Tory and Labour policy is still to leave the EU.
The will of the people, freely expressed, is to leave the EU.
What on earth makes you think another vote by our representatives would
have any chance of reversing that?
Simple. They vote the other way. Most of them would like to, but they
feel hogtied by the need to earn a crust.

MM
Norman Wells
2017-10-08 08:19:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
If MPs felt they had to endorse the will of the people freely expressed
in the referendum then they don't have any choice to ignore it now.
Of course they do! MPs can change their minds and vote another way,
just as ordinary voters can.
The vote in favour of triggering Article 50 was 498 to 114, ie over 81%
in favour and a massive majority of 384.
Tory and Labour policy is still to leave the EU.
The will of the people, freely expressed, is to leave the EU.
What on earth makes you think another vote by our representatives would
have any chance of reversing that?
Simple. They vote the other way. Most of them would like to, but they
feel hogtied by the need to earn a crust.
If that's the case, you won't get any different result if they have to
vote again because they're still hogtied. So, it's pointless putting
your faith in it. You might just as well accept the verdict of the
British people, as supported by 81% of MPs when it came to the crunch,
and get on with it.

There's no evidence to suggest that they all now believe the other way
to the way they voted earlier, or that they'd vote any differently now.
pensive hamster
2017-10-09 17:54:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".
But we don't have to share in the "EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union" (leaving aside the meaning of "ever closer
union" ), we have been able to opt out.
Do you not consider opting out as sufficient?
No. Why would I? An option to opt out is meaningless if a UK government
decides to go all in with the EU. It simply means the UK will not be
forced to.
You seem to accept that the option to opt out "means the
UK will not be forced to" share in the "EU's direction of
travel - ever closer union" (leaving aside for now the
meaning of "ever closer union"), so I do not understand
why that is not sufficient for you.

I thought you wanted the elected UK government to be
sovereign. You seem to be worried about the UK
government ignoring the opt out option and deciding to
go all in with the EU. It is beginning to look as if you don't
trust either the EU or the UK government.
If we stay in the EU, nothing is off the table. Nothing.
Going by what you say above, it looks as if you think
nothing is off the table even if we leave the EU, because
the UK government could still decide to go all in with the
EU.

Presumably if the UK government did decide to go all in
with the EU, in order not to stir up UKIP, they would have
to avoid the term "EU membership" and instead describe
it as a "special relationship with the EU", or say, as May did
in Florence, that the UK would be the EU's "strongest partner
and friend", and that the UK would have a "deep and special
partnership" with the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
'In brief: The proposed EU deal would exempt the UK from
aspiring to ?an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe?.
This phrase has a symbolic political impact, but has little or no
legal effect. Saying that it no longer applies to the UK doesn?t
change anything about how the EU works, or the powers it has.
'...The UK has opt-outs despite ?ever closer union?
'It?s also important that the wording ?ever closer union? hasn?t
prevented Britain from obtaining a range of opt-outs from EU
integration in the past.
'And in June 2014, the European leaders formally stated that
?the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of
integration for different countries, allowing those that want to
deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish
of those who do not want to deepen any further?.
'... ?It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the
specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to
further political integration into the European Union. The substance
of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next
revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties
and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States,
so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do
not apply to the United Kingdom? ...'
Yes, I know what "ever closer union" is, and I know what an opt out is.
I also know that things change.
What do you understand by "ever closer union"?

This article doesn't seem to think it means "ever
closer *political* union":

https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/

“Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political
union

'This expression is of long-standing origin.

'It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up
what became the EU. On at least six occasions the UK has
signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then
agreeing to subsequent treaty changes).

'So for example, one of the main EU treaties currently refers to:

“the process of creating an ever closer union among the
peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly
as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.

'Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the
peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not
contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with
a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a
European super-state. ...'
MM
2017-10-10 08:17:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 9 Oct 2017 10:54:44 -0700 (PDT), pensive hamster
Post by pensive hamster
A reason I, and the others who might share this particular view, want
out is because we do not want to share in the EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union. We therefore want to leave "at any cost".
But we don't have to share in the "EU's direction of travel -
ever closer union" (leaving aside the meaning of "ever closer
union" ), we have been able to opt out.
Do you not consider opting out as sufficient?
No. Why would I? An option to opt out is meaningless if a UK government
decides to go all in with the EU. It simply means the UK will not be
forced to.
You seem to accept that the option to opt out "means the
UK will not be forced to" share in the "EU's direction of
travel - ever closer union" (leaving aside for now the
meaning of "ever closer union"), so I do not understand
why that is not sufficient for you.
I thought you wanted the elected UK government to be
sovereign. You seem to be worried about the UK
government ignoring the opt out option and deciding to
go all in with the EU. It is beginning to look as if you don't
trust either the EU or the UK government.
If we stay in the EU, nothing is off the table. Nothing.
Going by what you say above, it looks as if you think
nothing is off the table even if we leave the EU, because
the UK government could still decide to go all in with the
EU.
Presumably if the UK government did decide to go all in
with the EU, in order not to stir up UKIP, they would have
to avoid the term "EU membership" and instead describe
it as a "special relationship with the EU", or say, as May did
in Florence, that the UK would be the EU's "strongest partner
and friend", and that the UK would have a "deep and special
partnership" with the EU.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41355642
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
'In brief: The proposed EU deal would exempt the UK from
aspiring to ?an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe?.
This phrase has a symbolic political impact, but has little or no
legal effect. Saying that it no longer applies to the UK doesn?t
change anything about how the EU works, or the powers it has.
'...The UK has opt-outs despite ?ever closer union?
'It?s also important that the wording ?ever closer union? hasn?t
prevented Britain from obtaining a range of opt-outs from EU
integration in the past.
'And in June 2014, the European leaders formally stated that
?the concept of ever closer union allows for different paths of
integration for different countries, allowing those that want to
deepen integration to move ahead, while respecting the wish
of those who do not want to deepen any further?.
'... ?It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the
specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to
further political integration into the European Union. The substance
of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next
revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties
and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States,
so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do
not apply to the United Kingdom? ...'
Yes, I know what "ever closer union" is, and I know what an opt out is.
I also know that things change.
What do you understand by "ever closer union"?
This article doesn't seem to think it means "ever
https://fullfact.org/europe/explaining-eu-deal-ever-closer-union/
“Ever closer union” isn’t specifically a call for political
union
'This expression is of long-standing origin.
'It is found in the Preamble to the 1957 treaty that set up
what became the EU. On at least six occasions the UK has
signed up to it (firstly in becoming a member, and then
agreeing to subsequent treaty changes).
“the process of creating an ever closer union among the
peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly
as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen”.
'Notably, the treaties actually say “ever closer union of the
peoples” of Europe, not governments. The phrase does not
contain the word “political”, and it uses the word “union” with
a small u, less suggestive of a formal drive towards a
European super-state. ...'
Basically, the reason why Yellow and her fellow Brexiters latch on to
phrases like 'ever closer union' is because they are convinced that
the whole EU thing is a scam set up by Germany in an attempt to bring
in the Fourth Reich by the back door.

MM
Loading...