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

[Burney]

I really am bored of waiting now.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Now the clocks have changed, I'm not sure.

[Pat Vegas]

I really am bored of waiting now.

I like this word trigger.

also used a lot when people trigger somewons release clause.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

"And he pulled the fastest milk cart in the West"

[Yesterday Once More]

The letter to our dear European friends arrives at 12.30 tomorrow.

[Pat Vegas]

The letter to our dear European friends arrives at 12.30 tomorrow.

it sounds scary like the Y2K bug.

[Sir C]

I really am bored of waiting now.

It's really happening, then. Until very recently I still suspected they'd find a way to kick it down the road.

Strap in. One way or another, we're going to be living in interesting times.

[Pat Vegas]

It's really happening, then. Until very recently I still suspected they'd find a way to kick it down the road.

Strap in. One way or another, we're going to be living in interesting times.

Shall i wait on buying a house/flat then?
maybe it will be worth my while.

She sends a letter. I hope they have a good post dept. when I send letters to companies they never seem to receive them.

[Sir C]

Shall i wait on buying a house/flat then?
maybe it will be worth my while.

She sends a letter. I hope they have a good post dept. when I send letters to companies they never seem to receive them.

Apparently some chap from the FCO took it on Eurostar and it's already in Brussels.

If you're ready to buy, buy. There will always be a reason to wait. Just get on with it. People always worry about buying and then seeing prices go down, but the value of your property is irrelevant unless you want to sell. If you buy and then the market crashes, you just sit tight and wait for prices to recover.

My first house cost £64k. Two years later it was worth about £35k. I sold it 5 years later for £135k :shrug:

[Burney]

It's really happening, then. Until very recently I still suspected they'd find a way to kick it down the road.

Strap in. One way or another, we're going to be living in interesting times.

It was always going to happen. Things got very entrenched very quickly, which left little or no room for compromise. Had the EU and remainers taken a more accepting and conciliatory stance immediately after the vote, it's possible people might have accepted a more fudged outcome. However, the arrogance, sneering and screaming on one side for it to be stopped simply made people on the other side even more determined for it to go ahead.

It will be interesting, but things were going to be interesting whatever happened. There are huge issues looming over Europe right now with the potential to make Brexit look like a sideshow.

[Pat Vegas]

Apparently some chap from the FCO took it on Eurostar and it's already in Brussels.

If you're ready to buy, buy. There will always be a reason to wait. Just get on with it. People always worry about buying and then seeing prices go down, but the value of your property is irrelevant unless you want to sell. If you buy and then the market crashes, you just sit tight and wait for prices to recover.

My first house cost £64k. Two years later it was worth about £35k. I sold it 5 years later for £135k :shrug:

:cloud9: they should have a live tracker of the letter it's very exciting.

[Burney]

:cloud9: they should have a live tracker of the letter it's very exciting.

I hope Remainers get this lady in for the moment. She's great.

547

[Monty92]

I hope Remainers get this lady in for the moment. She's great.

547

Mildly disappointed that no-one on The Internet seems to have gone to the bother of photoshopping a massive cock sinking into her gaping, whimpering maw.

[Sir C]

It was always going to happen. Things got very entrenched very quickly, which left little or no room for compromise. Had the EU and remainers taken a more accepting and conciliatory stance immediately after the vote, it's possible people might have accepted a more fudged outcome. However, the arrogance, sneering and screaming on one side for it to be stopped simply made people on the other side even more determined for it to go ahead.

It will be interesting, but things were going to be interesting whatever happened. There are huge issues looming over Europe right now with the potential to make Brexit look like a sideshow.

When I heard Dawkins had referred to a 'nasty little backwater' I assumed he was talking about his own mind.

It must be hard for these people to live in a country they hate so much.

[IUFG]

I hope Remainers get this lady in for the moment. She's great.

547

talking of munters. . . has Sturgeon issued her daily demand for another scotch independence referendum yet?

[Pat Vegas]

I hope Remainers get this lady in for the moment. She's great.

547

:hehe: I hope when they hand it over they take the opportunity to say a little cheeky comment.

[Sir C]

talking of munters. . . has Sturgeon issued her daily demand for another scotch independence referendum yet?

I find her not a little intriguing in the pumpy stakes, i. She has very thin lips. And you know my theory about ladies with thin lips.

[Monty92]

When I heard Dawkins had referred to a 'nasty little backwater' I assumed he was talking about his own mind.

It must be hard for these people to live in a country they hate so much.

I had two thoughts yesterday, one of which is not original but strikes me as sensible, that there should be a threshold for a referendum victory of something that means a 52-48 result does not automatically mean victory for the 52.

The other more original idea is that one solution to all this bickering would be to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal with the EU, but only among those who voted Out. Would that not be quite a neat idea?

[Burney]

When I heard Dawkins had referred to a 'nasty little backwater' I assumed he was talking about his own mind.

It must be hard for these people to live in a country they hate so much.

As someone on Twitter said, Remain would have done much better if it hadn't been championed by the sort of people who think flying a British flag on British soil is controversial.

[Pokster]

I had two thoughts yesterday, one of which is not original but strikes me as sensible, that there should be a threshold for a referendum victory of something that means a 52-48 result does not automatically mean victory for the 52.

The other more original idea is that one solution to all this bickering would be to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal with the EU, but only among those who voted Out. Would that not be quite a neat idea?

Well since when you vote your name doesn't show on the paper i would suggest your second idea is as **** as most of your thoughts

[Sir C]

I had two thoughts yesterday, one of which is not original but strikes me as sensible, that there should be a threshold for a referendum victory of something that means a 52-48 result does not automatically mean victory for the 52.

The other more original idea is that one solution to all this bickering would be to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal with the EU, but only among those who voted Out. Would that not be quite a neat idea?

Yes, I suppose for such a major constitutional issue a threshold margin for victory might be considered sensibel; however, as one wasn't imposed, the point is moot.

To my mind the original referendum was a single, simple question, do you want to stay in, or get out. The 'electorate' voted out. It's now up to our elected politicians to decide how, and under what terms that happens. We can't keep asking hoi polloi to decide on these issues, mainly because most of them are as thick as mince.

[Burney]

I had two thoughts yesterday, one of which is not original but strikes me as sensible, that there should be a threshold for a referendum victory of something that means a 52-48 result does not automatically mean victory for the 52.

The other more original idea is that one solution to all this bickering would be to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal with the EU, but only among those who voted Out. Would that not be quite a neat idea?

1. No. A margin of victory in a popular vote is still a margin of victory. Anywhere else you draw the line is perforce arbitrary and unfair. Equally, such a rule would always favour the status quo. After all, had the vote percentages been reversed, do we think we'd have left the EU? Of course not. We'd have stayed in, meaning that, whichever way the vote went, the Leave voters were effectively disenfranchised.

2. This is a bit retarded. You realise we have a system of secret ballots, yes? And that there is therefore no way of knowing who did or didn't vote to leave?

[Monty92]

Well since when you vote your name doesn't show on the paper i would suggest your second idea is as **** as most of your thoughts

Obviously my idea would require some system in place to that you could prove which way you voted in order to vote in the second referendum. Seems workable in theory.

[Sir C]

Well since when you vote your name doesn't show on the paper i would suggest your second idea is as **** as most of your thoughts

I was surprised to note the last couple of times I voted that the ballot paper had a reference number printed on it, against which my name was ticked in the electoral roll. Your vote is easily identifiable.

[Pat Vegas]

Obviously my idea would require some system in place to that you could prove which way you voted in order to vote in the second referendum. Seems workable in theory.

They tick you off the list when you arrive at the polling station.

[Sir C]

1. No. A margin of victory in a popular vote is still a margin of victory. Anywhere else you draw the line is perforce arbitrary and unfair. Equally, such a rule would always favour the status quo. After all, had the vote percentages been reversed, do we think we'd have left the EU? Of course not. We'd have stayed in, meaning that, whichever way the vote went, the Leave voters were effectively disenfranchised.

2. This is a bit retarded. You realise we have a system of secret ballots, yes? And that there is therefore no way of knowing who did or didn't vote to leave?

'Secret ballots' :hehe:

[Monty92]

1. No. A margin of victory in a popular vote is still a margin of victory. Anywhere else you draw the line is perforce arbitrary and unfair. Equally, such a rule would always favour the status quo - after all, had the vote percentages been reversed, do we think we'd have left the EU? Of course not. We'd have stayed in, meaning that, whichever way the vote went, the Leave voters were effectively disenfranchised.

2. This is a bit retarded. You realise we have a system of secret ballots, yes? And that there is therefore no way of knowing who did or didn't vote to leave?

1. But I don't think there can be anything more arbitrary than a 52-48 vote meaning victory for the 52. Because we know full well that a result of that small a margin is simply no more meaningful than tossing a coin to decide. A 60-40 victory, however, would tell us a lot more.

2. I'm surprised it would have needed me to qualify that OBVIOUSLY my idea would require a new system where you could retrospectively prove which way you originally voted in order to vote in the second referendum.

[Pat Vegas]

I was surprised to note the last couple of times I voted that the ballot paper had a reference number printed on it, against which my name was ticked in the electoral roll. Your vote is easily identifiable.

Remember don't use pencil or they will alter your vote or something.

[Pokster]

Obviously my idea would require some system in place to that you could prove which way you voted in order to vote in the second referendum. Seems workable in theory.

I can't see the public wanting a syatem where you could find out which wasy you voted... it is a crap idea as youa re alos stopping anyone who voted stay changing their mind... so in other words it is a loaded idea that is completely against 1 side

[Burney]

Yes, I suppose for such a major constitutional issue a threshold margin for victory might be considered sensibel; however, as one wasn't imposed, the point is moot.

To my mind the original referendum was a single, simple question, do you want to stay in, or get out. The 'electorate' voted out. It's now up to our elected politicians to decide how, and under what terms that happens. We can't keep asking hoi polloi to decide on these issues, mainly because most of them are as thick as mince.


I think your second point is a good one and too often overlooked. This was at heart actually a very simple issue: do we wish to be governed within the framework of the EU or not? The fact that its ramifications are complex does not alter the essential simplicity of the core issue. To say people didn't know what they were voting for is absurd - they absolutely did. That one may or may not like the various reasons they voted Leave is neither here nor there.

[IUFG]

I find her not a little intriguing in the pumpy stakes, i. She has very thin lips. And you know my theory about ladies with thin lips.

you sir, are a deviant.

[Sir C]

I think your second point is a good one and too often overlooked. This was at heart actually a very simple issue: do we wish to be governed within the framework of the EU or not? The fact that its ramifications are complex does not alter the essential simplicity of the core issue. To say people didn't know what they were voting for is absurd - they absolutely did. That one may or may not like the various reasons they voted Leave is neither here nor there.

Hence my reluctance to vote at the time; I was very much in favour, in theory, of exiting the EU, but concerned about the unexplained, unknown and highly complex ramifications of such a move.

[Sir C]

you sir, are a deviant.

ty, i. Kind of you to acknowledge it.

[Burney]

1. But I don't think there can be anything more arbitrary than a 52-48 vote meaning victory for the 52. Because we know full well that a result of that small a margin is simply no more meaningful than tossing a coin to decide. A 60-40 victory, however, would tell us a lot more.

2. I'm surprised it would have needed me to qualify that OBVIOUSLY my idea would require a new system where you could retrospectively prove which way you originally voted in order to vote in the second referendum.

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?

[Burney]

Hence my reluctance to vote at the time; I was very much in favour, in theory, of exiting the EU, but concerned about the unexplained, unknown and highly complex ramifications of such a move.

:shrug: I knew that leaving the EU meant ensuring that the laws passed over me and those that pass them would once again be subject to democratic and electoral scrutiny rather than being imposed by diktat by an unelected foreign bureaucracy. I thought - and still think -that principle important enough to be worth protecting regardless of other ramifications.

[Burney]

ty, i. Kind of you to acknowledge it.

I was thinking about shagging Nicola Sturgeon yesterday. Obviously, the thing would have to be done from behind, but might be quite fun. I imagine she makes amusing hooting noises at the point of climax.

[redgunamo]

It will be interesting, but things were going to be interesting whatever happened. There are huge issues looming over Europe right now with the potential to make Brexit look like a sideshow.

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
:-|

[Sir C]

I was thinking about shagging Nicola Sturgeon yesterday. Obviously, the thing would have to be done from behind, but might be quite fun. I imagine she makes amusing hooting noises at the point of climax.


One might engage in a session of 'bagpiping' for the, shall we say, lols?

[redgunamo]

I had two thoughts yesterday, one of which is not original but strikes me as sensible, that there should be a threshold for a referendum victory of something that means a 52-48 result does not automatically mean victory for the 52.

The other more original idea is that one solution to all this bickering would be to hold a second referendum on the final Brexit deal with the EU, but only among those who voted Out. Would that not be quite a neat idea?

We could try that in the football too; a 1-0 win doesn't automatically mean victory :homer:

[Pat Vegas]

I was thinking about shagging Nicola Sturgeon yesterday. Obviously, the thing would have to be done from behind, but might be quite fun. I imagine she makes amusing hooting noises at the point of climax.

:hehe: 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.

[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]

:hehe: 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.

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

[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]

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

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

[Pat Vegas]

oh ffs.

pass me the mind bleach.

:hehe: :hehe:

[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.

[Burney]

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.

As I have said before, there is nothing arbitrary whatsoever in a democratic system about the idea of the majority view prevailing. It's the principle upon which the whole thing is predicated, in fact.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Has the dictionary definition of "majority" changed since I last checked it?

[Monty92]

As I have said before, there is nothing arbitrary whatsoever in a democratic system about the idea of the majority view prevailing. It's the principle upon which the whole thing is predicated, in fact.

But you would concede, at least, that the larger the margin required, the greater the chance of establishing whether or not a true majority opinion exists. I fully understand if you still think changing the margin required would be a bad idea (and probably on balance agree with you), but you must at the same time acknowledge that a 51-49 vote is as revealing of public opinion as a toss of a coin.

[Monty92]

Has the dictionary definition of "majority" changed since I last checked it?

A majority on one day, which could just as easily be a minority the next day, depending on something as trivial as the weather, may still be a majority, but it tells us nothing. These decisions are intended to reveal whether or not there is a majority opinion. The current system does not do this in any meaningful way.

[redgunamo]

These decisions are intended to reveal whether or not there is a majority opinion.

No. They are to provide a result. Like a football match, it is not about who the better team is. We just need a result so everyone can move on, move forward. All the rest is banter.

[Burney]

But you would concede, at least, that the larger the margin required, the greater the chance of establishing whether or not a true majority opinion exists. I fully understand if you still think changing the margin required would be a bad idea (and probably on balance agree with you), but you must at the same time acknowledge that a 51-49 vote is as revealing of public opinion as a toss of a coin.

What is this 'true' majority of which you burble? There is a majority or there is not. And a vote on a given day is how we decide everything. Our votes are solemn and binding and we accept that whenever we walk into the voting booth. Political factions move mountains to get 'don't knows' to vote their way on any given day for precisely that reason. Whether they may change their minds subsequently is neither here nor there. Essentially, you are just trying to load the dice.
Also, in the context of this referendum, your argument presupposes that it was a level playing field. It was not. Remain had all the powers of the sitting PM and Chancellor, all the major parties, the Governor of the Bank of England, a £9m leafletting campaign, various acronyms and the President of the United States going into bat for it. In those circumstances, on could argue that a 52:48 vote for Leave in fact would have represented a vastly bigger margin in a more equal contest.

[Monty92]

What is this 'true' majority of which you burble? There is a majority or there is not. And a vote on a given day is how we decide everything. Our votes are solemn and binding and we accept that whenever we walk into the voting booth. Political factions move mountains to get 'don't knows' to vote their way on any given day for precisely that reason. Whether they may change their minds subsequently is neither here nor there. Essentially, you are just trying to load the dice.
Also, in the context of this referendum, your argument presupposes that it was a level playing field. It was not. Remain had all the powers of the sitting PM and Chancellor, all the major parties, the Governor of the Bank of England, a £9m leafletting campaign, various acronyms and the President of the United States going into bat for it. In those circumstances, on could argue that a 52:48 vote for Leave in fact would have represented a vastly bigger margin in a more equal contest.

True majority opinion - an opinion that we know exists because the margin of victory was sufficient to discount arbitrary factors as having swung it. And probably big enough to take into account the capricious nature of 'don't knows', too.

Your other points are entirely valid. But I fail to see how you can argue against the suggestion that the larger the margin of victory, the more certain we can be that a true majority opinion exists.

That this does not make it a good idea as an electoral system, we can agree on.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

The assumption, as with all unsuccessful campaigns, is that somehow those who did not vote would have voted for the losing option and thus made it the winner. There is never any statistical evidence to support this.

I have some sympathy with the idea that one vote can cause a major upheaval in the way a country is run and so forth but isn't that what general elections do all the time? One party may nationalise something, another privatises it. In between huge expenses and decisions which resound for years are taken.

That's democracy. A flawed system but the best one we've come up with so far.

[Burney]

True majority opinion - an opinion that we know exists because the margin of victory was sufficient to discount arbitrary factors as having swung it.

Your other points are entirely valid. But I fail to see how you can argue against the suggestion that the larger the margin of victory, the more certain we can be that a true majority opinion exists.

That this is ultimately insufficient to make it a good idea as an electoral system, we can agree on.

But arbitrary factors are part of the deal, I'm afraid :shrug: How a given voter feels on a given day is what counts because we sort of assume they're adults and have actually thought about it before voting. Anything apart from where they put that mark is meaningless because - whatever other factors obtain - the result on the day and is the only thing that matters, regardless of the narrowness of victory. Demanding that the result of a close vote shouldn't count is like demanding that a flukey last-minute goal shouldn't count in a close football match.