Anyone know what time we're supposed to trigger Article 50 tomorrow?

[Burney]

Indeed. My old dear recovered my dad's remains from the bottom of the garden this morning, after we'd promised faithfully that we were to renounce the grain for a bit. My fault entirely, of course, but I avoided the rod as I at least made it back into the house. Lunch will be a tense affair

You left your poor elderly father to sleep in the garden in March? Dear God, man! You're a monster!

[Burney]

it could lead to disgusting role play. "You want another referendum? what you gonna do for it?
Yeah that's right how much do you want that 2nd referendum"

back in 5.

'Oh, you want to keep the pound, do you? Well you'd better get rusty tromboning, hadn't you?'

[Monty92]

No, I'm sorry, but it's absolutely not arbitrary in a democracy to say that a majority vote should prevail. Moving the margin to 60-40 would simply be to fix the status quo and create the potential to leave a majority feeling rightly cheated and likely to seek recourse by other means.

Right. So in a situation where voters were denied the anonymity demanded by law and the authorities were to openly break the law by tracking individual votes, you think that would be a good plan? Why?

I understand there is both principle and pragmatism behind a majority vote. But I do think that requiring a larger margin of victory would provide a certain safeguard against the electorate making bad decisions based on whims and the way the wind was blowing on the day of the vote. If there was a 60-40 vote, we could say with almost absolute certainty that if the vote was held the next day, it would go the same way (give or take a small swing). The same cannot be said of a 52-48 vote.

Regarding anonymous voting, I'm sure there could be some clever technological solution that allows us to retain anonymity while being able to prove, discreetly, later which way you voted if you wish to participate in a second vote.

[redgunamo]

You left your poor elderly father to sleep in the garden in March? Dear God, man! You're a monster!

The man had just polished off about a thousand pounds worth of my whisky, some of it in seasoning a suckling pig.

Under the circumstances, I was the model of gallantry and valour. Brilliant old *******.

[Burney]

I understand there is both principle and pragmatism behind a majority vote. But I do think that requiring a larger margin of victory would provide a certain safeguard against the electorate making bad decisions based on whims and the way the wind was blowing on the day of the vote. If there was a 60-40 vote, we could say with almost absolute certainty that if the vote was held the next day, it would go the same way (give or take a small swing). The same cannot be said of a 52-48 vote.

Regarding anonymous voting, I'm sure there could be some clever technological solution that allows us to retain anonymity while being able to prove, discreetly, later which way you voted if you wish to participate in a second vote.

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

[IUFG]

'Oh, you want to keep the pound, do you? Well you'd better get rusty tromboning, hadn't you?'

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

[Pat Vegas]

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

[Monty92]

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

Your original contention was that shifting the margin of victory would be arbitrary (which of course it would). I maintain that the current system is even more arbitrary for the reason I've stated: that a 51-49 vote is no more meanintful in terms of representing the "majority" opinion than a toss of the coin would be. A 60-40 vote would be significantly more meaningful as it would prove that a majority opinion does exist.

[Pokster]

Your original contention was that shifting the margin of victory would be arbitrary (which of course it would). I maintain that the current system is even more arbitrary for the reason I've stated: that a 51-49 vote is no more meanintful in terms of representing the "majority" opinion than a toss of the coin would be. A 60-40 vote would be significantly more meaningful as it would prove that a majority opinion does exist.

So shouldn't the Scottish parliament have a 60:40 before they can call for an independence vote?

[redgunamo]

Your first point presupposes that there is such a thing in a democracy as 'a bad decision'. There isn't. There is only what the people decide and the government (who serve us, remember, not the other way around) must then act upon that decision. The whole idea is predicated on exactly the technocratic, 'nanny knows best' principle that the Brexit vote rejected. It is essentially a recipe for nothing ever changing.
It's also utterly impractical. Look at Scotland. I defy you to try and keep Scotland in the Union on the basis of a 59:41 vote in favour of independence.

As to the second vote idea - besides the logistical and legal issues - I see no practical merit in it.

Right. Our democracy is essentially based on banter, rather than actual, statistical, proveable fact. This is what alot of folk do not understand.