|
|
Topic Originator: Luxembourg Par
Date: Mon 18 Mar 23:44
its on the news here that Brexit has been delayed to 30 June.
nothing on BBC or any newspapers?
RTL in Lux jumping the gun?
or is the cat out of the bag?
oh, and that any UK citizens will immediately be given a 1 year transitional period in the event of no deal...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Tue 19 Mar 08:48
Called it at the start, not happening.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Tue 19 Mar 09:30
Nothing has changed at this point in time.
Speculation that EU summit on Thursday will agree to a delay with a time limit leaving it up to the U.K. government to determine how long that might be.
Then it would be back to U.K. next week to decide on next steps with only a few days until Brexit Day on 29th under current legislation.
European Parliament elections in May will have some bearing on the length of any extension as the new Parliament would formally open in July, I think, although not much would happen until later in the year.
U.K. would have to consider whether it takes part in these elections in considering how long an extension might be.
No one can predict the outcome of the next ten days.
Post Edited (Tue 19 Mar 09:37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: OzPar
Date: Tue 19 Mar 22:08
Yup, that's the Eurovision Song Contest guaranteed for Britain.
:)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Wed 20 Mar 08:18
Are Rainbow still on the go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 20 Mar 20:08
Isn't it reassuring that the natural party of government has been conducting the negotiations?
I saw Mark Francois MP on Channel 4 News salivating at the prospect of leaving the EU without a deal. That's what 17m people voted for apparently - leaving at any price. They love to quote the figure of 17m as if that was the size of the majority rather than a slightly higher figure than the number who voted to remain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Wed 20 Mar 21:48
The will of the people.Oh well 35% of the people who never actually voted for this shambles.
They were really voting as fed up with these clowns running the country and then let them loose to make money for themselves.
We cant have a second vote as the people have spoken(and they now know we lied and cheated so not a great idea).
Hitler would have been proud of this lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Wed 20 Mar 23:20
Easy to play with numbers: less than 38% of the electorate voted Yes in the Scottish referendum. Hardly a mandate for Indyref 2 which the Nats keep banging on about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Wed 20 Mar 23:40
That was almost five years ago but why should people not voting be aligned with 'no' voters?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 21 Mar 08:16
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 20 Mar 23:40
That was almost five years ago but why should people not voting be aligned with 'no' voters?
I think it's generally accepted that people who do not vote for change are tacitly in favour of a status quo, eck, although I'm well aware that this view is open to challenge.
Maybe we should have the Australian policy in place? If you don't use your vote you're liable to a hefty fine. Still, in a democracy, I suppose you should have the right to withhold your vote, if you wish to.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Mar 08:37
''I think it's generally accepted that people who do not vote for change are tacitly in favour of a status quo, eck, although I'm well aware that this view is open to challenge.''
That's probably 'generally accepted' by those who are in favour of the status quo themselves. I suspect the main reason people don't vote is that they are apathetic about politics. I can't see any justification for allocating their votes to any side. What would you do in a General Election?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Bandy
Date: Thu 21 Mar 09:32
If you weren't in favour of the status quo why on earth would you choose not to use your vote?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Mar 10:21
As I said, maybe you're apathetic. If you are in favour of the status quo why not vote for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: moviescot
Date: Thu 21 Mar 11:23
Quote:
GG Riva, Thu 21 Mar 08:16
Quote:
wee eck, Wed 20 Mar 23:40
That was almost five years ago but why should people not voting be aligned with 'no' voters?
I think it's generally accepted that people who do not vote for change are tacitly in favour of a status quo, eck, although I'm well aware that this view is open to challenge.
Maybe we should have the Australian policy in place? If you don't use your vote you're liable to a hefty fine. Still, in a democracy, I suppose you should have the right to withhold your vote, if you wish to.
You can still use the Australian way. When you go in to vote surely you just spoil your vote. Is it not attending that counts? Maybe someone in Australia could clarify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 21 Mar 16:38
Quote:
Bandy, Thu 21 Mar 09:32
If you weren't in favour of the status quo why on earth would you choose not to use your vote?
^^^^^This^^^^^^
If you were really keen to leave the EU or for Scotland to become an independent country, there's no way you'd be "apathetic", surely? The opportunity to vote couldn't come quickly enough for you, I'd have thought.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Mar 16:54
I can't think of anything more undemocratic than allocating the votes of those who didn't vote to one side or the other. I can't believe we're having this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Thu 21 Mar 18:02
š£
I simply responded to donj.
Shows what you can do with stats šÆ
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 21 Mar 18:08
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 21 Mar 16:54
I can't think of anything more undemocratic than allocating the votes of those who didn't vote to one side or the other. I can't believe we're having this discussion.
We're not "allocating votes" as you put it, eck. We're just floating the hypothesis that those who don't use their vote in a referendum are not showing any enthusiasm for change.
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Mar 18:39
Well I don't think they're showing any enthusiasm for the status quo either.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: GG Riva
Date: Thu 21 Mar 19:54
Quote:
wee eck, Thu 21 Mar 18:39
Well I don't think they're showing any enthusiasm for the status quo either.
Fair point, eck, but I come back to my initial argument. If you want change, you'll surely get off your @r$e and do something to try and make it happen?
Not your average Sunday League player.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: wee eck
Date: Thu 21 Mar 21:07
This argument started because parbucks expressed the vote for independence in 2014 as a percentage of the electorate rather than as a percentage of the turnout which is the accepted method of measuring support in a political election. It's a favourite argument of unionists or people who favour the status quo. Why not express the 'no' vote as a percentage of the electorate? It would be less than 50%. Does that mean there isn't a majority for either so the result is void?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 22 Mar 19:59
Keep trying wee eck.
āThereās lies, damned lies and statisticsā.
Itās the way you tell it.š
|
|
|
|
|
|
