General Election After Brecon Result

Would not be shocked.

Then we will see this politcal board explode with venom and spite, as people fail to control their personal attacks beacuse of simple differences of opinion.

Cant wait.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by life on mars

Would not be shocked.

Then we will see this politcal board explode with venom and spite, as people fail to control their personal attacks beacuse of simple differences of opinion.

Cant wait.

---

I'm sure Wales-Bales and/or Ronnie will try to restrain themselves.

Ronnie has an annoying habit of pressing the space bar before a question mark; Wales-Bales never does. Therefore I must conclude they are different people and I've never thought otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Ronnie has an annoying habit of pressing the space bar before a question mark; Wales-Bales never does. Therefore I must conclude they are different people and I've never thought otherwise.

---

Who am I ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1959

I'm sure Wales-Bales and/or Ronnie will try to restrain themselves.

---

I don't talk about politics much, it's a mugs game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wales-Bales

Who am I ?

---

:hehe:

One of the benefits of never voting is it's easy to rise above the red-blue fisticuffs. The primary reason I stopped voting after the 1997 General Election was that the proceeding two years convinced me both parties relentlessly pursued an identical agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

:hehe:

One of the benefits of never voting is it's easy to rise above the red-blue fisticuffs. The primary reason I stopped voting after the 1997 General Election was that the proceeding two years convinced me both parties relentlessly pursued an identical agenda.

---

I totally agree, it's more fun being a neautral observer, and you have a clearer view of the ongoing malfeasance. As soon as you pick a side your thought processes become clouded, and you become highly susceptible to suggestion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Ronnie has an annoying habit of pressing the space bar before a question mark; Wales-Bales never does. Therefore I must conclude they are different people and I've never thought otherwise.

---

Well spotted Organ Morgan. I don't know why it's annoying, but that's beside the point.
I expect that if you were to compare our respective posts you'd find lots of stuff like that. It did occur to me to do just that, but there's a limit to how much I care.

The whole thing is tiresome , but it does at least serve to expose the limited ability of some like Jon1959 and Rudey to form reliable opinions and judgements, and so in that sense it is helpful.

I haven't looked at the by election result , although I expect that it's out by now , but I should think that a general election is pretty much inevitable one way or another, and I think the signs are obvious that BoJo is preparing for one because he's promising all sorts of things which he knows he probably won't have to do in this Parliament.

An early GE looks increasingly likely now as this might easily become a minority government soon if certain Tories carry out their promises to defect (Philip Lee being the latest to rouse speculation)

Coupled with Labour's poor polling results and a perceived "Boris Bounce", however slight, the Tories might conclude now is their best chance of gaining some miniscule majority. Nevertheless, if Labour suddenly changes tack and gets real with itself by abandoning it's fence sitting, the Tories could well regret ever calling a GE in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

An early GE looks increasingly likely now as this might easily become a minority government soon if certain Tories carry out their promises to defect (Philip Lee being the latest to rouse speculation)

Coupled with Labour's poor polling results and a perceived "Boris Bounce", however slight, the Tories might conclude now is their best chance of gaining some miniscule majority. Nevertheless, if Labour suddenly changes tack and gets real with itself by abandoning it's fence sitting, the Tories could well regret ever calling a GE in the first place.

---

If the euro elections weren't a wake up call for labour, I don't know what is. They've got such an opportunity here, ripe for the taking.

The remain parties are working together so as not to split the vote. Labour should be all over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

If the euro elections weren't a wake up call for labour, I don't know what is. They've got such an opportunity here, ripe for the taking.

The remain parties are working together so as not to split the vote. Labour should be all over it.

---

Lots in Labour don’t want to win an election.
They want to go along to meetings and sing ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ like the followers of the Thugee cult in The Temple Of Doom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CardiffIrish2

Lots in Labour don’t want to win an election.
They want to go along to meetings and sing ‘oh Jeremy Corbyn’ like the followers of the Thugee cult in The Temple Of Doom.

---

Nail on the head .

Divide ,think you have conquered, fall no matter what , as long as the cause is kept up.

Depending upon who wins any election , it remains to be seen whether the result will be accepted.
We're in territory where the minority now start demanding a re run if they lose a vote, so unless the elite and their followers win ,
( which seems unlikely ), we'll have years of ranting about how people didn't know what they were voting for .

Remain party wins in leave seat. Unless the Tories can fix the brexit party problem they basically can't call a GE

Won't be any alternative if they lose a no confidence motion or their majority.

If they can strike a deal with Nigel Farage and stand on a Brexit with no deal if necessary ticket, they'll increase their majority, but as I said there, we're now in the very dangerous territory where the outcome of a vote isn't necessarily accepted , so it's not certain whether that'd resolve anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Depending upon who wins any election , it remains to be seen whether the result will be accepted.
We're in territory where the minority now start demanding a re run if they lose a vote, so unless the elite and their followers win ,
( which seems unlikely ), we'll have years of ranting about how people didn't know what they were voting for .

---

That's an interesting take on something that's literally only happened once in an entire generation. You do realise that there's been a general election since the results of the Brexit vote and there weren't any demands for a re-run or years of ranting about how people didn't know what they were voting for... Right?

It's almost like you're worried that people may be right to question the result of the referendum.

There's an ocean of difference between a one off, so called generational, referendum on perhaps the biggest issue since the Second World War which, outrageously, was conducted without the sensible requirement of imposing a supermajority verdict, and a routine GE whose result can be overturned every five years or maybe sooner. That's dynamic and contemporary democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

There's an ocean of difference between a one off, so called generational, referendum on perhaps the biggest issue since the Second World War which, outrageously, was conducted without the sensible requirement of imposing a supermajority verdict, and a routine GE whose result can be overturned every five years or maybe sooner. That's dynamic and contemporary democracy.

---

Joining the Common Market was the biggest issue since the second world war, and they never told us where it was all you going to end up, so we were deceived about the true intentions of the EU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Remain party wins in leave seat. Unless the Tories can fix the brexit party problem they basically can't call a GE

---

If you add the Tory leave vote to the Brexit one , you get a leave win .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

There's an ocean of difference between a one off, so called generational, referendum on perhaps the biggest issue since the Second World War which, outrageously, was conducted without the sensible requirement of imposing a supermajority verdict, and a routine GE whose result can be overturned every five years or maybe sooner. That's dynamic and contemporary democracy.

---

I have said this several times in different threads and very few people seem to have grasped the point you and I have made i.e. Cameron et al should have set a minimum majority verdict of 66.6%. If this was not achieved then the status quo would be preserved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

That's an interesting take on something that's literally only happened once in an entire generation. You do realise that there's been a general election since the results of the Brexit vote and there weren't any demands for a re-run or years of ranting about how people didn't know what they were voting for... Right?

It's almost like you're worried that people may be right to question the result of the referendum.

---

You make an excellent point, although my post was more rhetorical than anything else. I think that the success or otherwise of refusing to accept the democratic outcome on Brexit will determine whether it becomes a standard tactic. Same sort of experiment is going on with President Trump in the USA.
The traditional tactic of calling everyone racist when the left lose an argument is wearing thin, particularly since they've been revealed as the most racist party in terms of anti semitism.
It's hard or impossible for them to win elections now because too many people are onto them, and they're not inclined to accept this as the test, so if they're able to gain anything from this desperate guerilla warfare through the media and sympathetic establishment components, they'll probably continue to do it and expand it .

50% +1 was required to get Britain into the EU but a two-thirds majority should have been the requirement to get out? Is there no end to the twisted reasoning of those who have sulked about the Brexit vote for over three years?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

You make an excellent point, although my post was more rhetorical than anything else. I think that the success or otherwise of refusing to accept the democratic outcome on Brexit will determine whether it becomes a standard tactic. Same sort of experiment is going on with President Trump in the USA.
The traditional tactic of calling everyone racist when the left lose an argument is wearing thin, particularly since they've been revealed as the most racist party in terms of anti semitism.
It's hard or impossible for them to win elections now because too many people are onto them, and they're not inclined to accept this as the test, so if they're able to gain anything from this desperate guerilla warfare through the media and sympathetic establishment components, they'll probably continue to do it and expand it .

---

Spot on .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gofer Blue

I have said this several times in different threads and very few people seem to have grasped the point you and I have made i.e. Cameron et al should have set a minimum majority verdict of 66.6%. If this was not achieved then the status quo would be preserved.

---

Absolutely right and if "Call me Dave" hadn't been such a baby he would have insisted upon it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Absolutely right and if "Call me Dave" hadn't been such a baby he would have insisted upon it.

---

And why exactly should one side have a harder number to reach than the other ?

This is just another way of trying to claim that the remainers are so much more intelligent than the majority that they should get their way - they should effectively get two votes each according to your suggestion.

Shall we do that then ? Have a second referrendum but require a two thirds majority to reverse the first one ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

And why exactly should one side have a harder number to reach than the other ?

This is just another way of trying to claim that the remainers are so much more intelligent than the majority that they should get their way - they should effectively get two votes each according to your suggestion.

Shall we do that then ? Have a second referrendum but require a two thirds majority to reverse the first one ?

---

Don't project your own fears of inferiority onto other peoples arguments.

Anybody who claims to understand enough about the EU to make a competent fully evidence-based decision is almost certainly lying. The only thing we all understand now is that the process of disentanglement isn't as simple as we were told (although I think that was pretty obvious from the start).

A simple argument for a threshold (maybe not as extreme as 66%) is that it's a decision that incurs years (possibly decades) of work and an immense cost attached.

You don't move house because you saw a picture and you think you might like the new one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eric Cartman

Don't project your own fears of inferiority onto other peoples arguments.

Anybody who claims to understand enough about the EU to make a competent fully evidence-based decision is almost certainly lying. The only thing we all understand now is that the process of disentanglement isn't as simple as we were told (although I think that was pretty obvious from the start).

A simple argument for a threshold (maybe not as extreme as 66%) is that it's a decision that incurs years (possibly decades) of work and an immense cost attached.

You don't move house because you saw a picture and you think you might like the new one.

---

I wonder why you think I've got any fear of inferiority. Are you saying I'm scared of you ?

Ignoring the little attempted put down, the rest of it simply makes no sense. Not all decisions are evidence based, and there's no requirement that they should be.
The bit about a "threshold" is just rewording the idea that one set of people's votes should count more than another set of people's votes. It's not acceptable in a democracy, and it's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to rephrase it, your position is that your minority is more qualified to decide than my majority. You're not kidding anyone though , because that's rejecting democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

And why exactly should one side have a harder number to reach than the other ?

This is just another way of trying to claim that the remainers are so much more intelligent than the majority that they should get their way - they should effectively get two votes each according to your suggestion.

Shall we do that then ? Have a second referrendum but require a two thirds majority to reverse the first one ?

---

No, it's nothing at all to do with intelligence, it's actually more to do with safe democracy and long term socio-economic and political stability.

Firstly, I make no pretence of the fact that I see no (or at best an exceedingly rare) case for referendums. We live in a Parliamentary Democracy so why a mature democracy like ours needs an opinion poll to further complicate matters, and serve to undermine Parliament (as it is now) I'll never know.

Since this opinion poll was foisted upon us by a weak Prime Minister we should at least have had the safety net of a supermajority verdict so as to ensure the result was in tune with the nation's collective desire and as a bulwark against the division and hatred which it has caused. The opinion poll in 2016 could have produced different results every six months had it been so tested, just as it is likely to produce a different result now. Is that any way for a modern, responsible democracy to effect policy making in the interest of the entire nation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I wonder why you think I've got any fear of inferiority. Are you saying I'm scared of you ?

Ignoring the little attempted put down, the rest of it simply makes no sense. Not all decisions are evidence based, and there's no requirement that they should be.
The bit about a "threshold" is just rewording the idea that one set of people's votes should count more than another set of people's votes. It's not acceptable in a democracy, and it's as simple as that.

It doesn't matter how many times you try to rephrase it, your position is that your minority is more qualified to decide than my majority. You're not kidding anyone though , because that's rejecting democracy.

---

It wasnt a put down. This 'you are calling all us leavers stupid' line just comes across as pathetic and I am tired of reading it.

If you don't make your decisions based on evidence then you won't ever learn from your mistakes (= you will be stupid). The idea that people should make a decision as massive and complex as brexit purely on gut feeling just highlights why so many sane people completely disagree with governing by referendum.

My (consistent, since the referendum occured) position is that none of us are qualified, me included. This forum hasn't done a great job of disproving this position so far.

It is self evident to every non-ideologue that the brexit goalposts have moved since 2016, the government are (if you believe them) happy to plow ahead with an outcome that probably doesn't have majority support under the banner of democracy. That in itself is mental and is why a vote on the deal or no-deal should be sought, in the name of democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

You make an excellent point, although my post was more rhetorical than anything else.

---

In my opinion, I'd have to say that your post was more hyperbolic than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I think that the success or otherwise of refusing to accept the democratic outcome on Brexit will determine whether it becomes a standard tactic. Same sort of experiment is going on with President Trump in the USA

---

"Experiment"? Why would you call it that?

Trump may or may not have been elected democratically - for arguments sake, I think he was - but he's doing his best to try to be as un-Presidential as possible and is rightfully being challenged on his harmful domestic and foreign policies, his alleged criminal activities (before and after being sworn into office), his literal thousands of proven lies and his outright bigoted & racist behaviours* - all of which should exclude a person from having executive powers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

The traditional tactic of calling everyone racist when the left lose an argument is wearing thin, particularly since they've been revealed as the most racist party in terms of anti semitism.

---

I'm not sure why racism is relevant to what we were saying, but more importantly... Have you just invented the 'Left Party'? If you're referring to the Labour party, say 'the Labour party'. I'm definitely on the left side of politics, but I'm not a staunch Labour supporter. In fact, it appears that unlike those who support right-wing ideologies/parties, I don't see the left as being an all-perfect viewpoint or political stance - I just think that it's much better than the opposite side... and as such, I don't agree with everything that Labour stands for.

In fact, if a left/liberal/labour/democratic politician does something wrong - the left, in general don't appear to be as blindly defensive of them - unlike those on the right. As such, the stories about anti-semitism within the Labour party are indeed troubling and there should be consequences, if proven.

Now we've discussed the left - how about the right? The Tory party with their general anti-muslim, anti-black, anti-lgbt, anti-disabled, anti-working class outlook (and the numerous policies that have evolved from them). It's a sad indictment of our country when the Tories are basically the soft-right party in the UK because of UKIP, the BNP, Britain First and all of the other splinter groups from them. It's strange that you don't see many marches from the left protesting against minority groups do you? Or posting racial slurs and threats against minorities online? There must be a reason for that, surely?

It's unsettling that you think that 'the left' call everyone racist when they're losing an argument - instead of just accepting that the majority of the time (not always, obviously... there are definitely times when people can be overly-sensitive or just born an entitled prick and have to be outraged about something - I accept that there are those types on 'both sides') it's just simply pointing out that someone is being a racist * (see: previous mention of the racist, Donald Trump - who is a racist. One more for luck, Donald Trump is a racist).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

It's hard or impossible for them to win elections now because too many people are onto them, and they're not inclined to accept this as the test, so if they're able to gain anything from this desperate guerilla warfare through the media and sympathetic establishment components, they'll probably continue to do it and expand it .

---

Is this the fabled Left Party or Labour? I'll be completely honest, nothing of what you've said beyond the word 'now' in the first sentence is making a lot of sense to me. If you could explain it to me in another way, that would be helpful.

You're obviously not a fan of Labour and their links to anti-semitism - but how do you feel about right-wing politics? Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered not so long ago by a far-right extremist because of her views on Europe, and, also be aware of the fact that the biggest domestic terrorist threat in racist Donald Trump's America is also from far-right extremists ("very fine people on both sides" though). This weekend's events haven't shone a positive light on right-wing America either.

If it's boils down to the politics of the left vs the politics of the right, I choose the one which doesn't preach about hate and murder. How about you?

I'm not a fan of anything remotely linked to socialism, which I believe to be an evil and empty philosophy which has caused nothing but death , suffering and dissapointed believers.
You're by no means the first person to make the understandable mistake that this means I support or condone the other lot.

In fact, as George Galloway puts it, they're two cheeks of the same arse, and they both lie constantly and routinely. They like each other much more than they like their own supporters because they are pigs together in the same trough.

I've met them and dealt with them and I can assure you that they're ALL laughing at those who listen to the divisive tribal crap they cling to.

You're right that I don't like anti semitism or any other kind of real mistreatment of people because of their race, but I do think that some of the nonsense people come up with and call it that is plain bloody silly. I've got complex theories on the subject of 'isms' in fact, and I'll share them with you some time. Not right now because I'm absolutely knackered from painting fence panels and I'm shortly going to eat some home grown baked potatoes and listen to infowars. ( I'm not really going to listen to infowars - just pulling your leg).

Your whole post is intelligent and well put together though , and deserves a better reply than this, but I thought I'd better do a holding reply because I appreciate your well thought out points , whether I happen to agree with all of them, and I certainly didn't want to just ignore them till tomorrow !

Your posting is a cut above the generally disappointing garbage here, and I thank you for restoring my faith ,( or lingering hope anyway) , that anyone under about 50 can still think for themselves, and I'll add to this tomorrow , God willing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I'm not a fan of anything remotely linked to socialism, which I believe to be an evil and empty philosophy which has caused nothing but death , suffering and dissapointed believers.
You're by no means the first person to make the understandable mistake that this means I support or condone the other lot.

In fact, as George Galloway puts it, they're two cheeks of the same arse, and they both lie constantly and routinely. They like each other much more than they like their own supporters because they are pigs together in the same trough.

I've met them and dealt with them and I can assure you that they're ALL laughing at those who listen to the divisive tribal crap they cling to.

You're right that I don't like anti semitism or any other kind of real mistreatment of people because of their race, but I do think that some of the nonsense people come up with and call it that is plain bloody silly. I've got complex theories on the subject of 'isms' in fact, and I'll share them with you some time. Not right now because I'm absolutely knackered from painting fence panels and I'm shortly going to eat some home grown baked potatoes and listen to infowars. ( I'm not really going to listen to infowars - just pulling your leg).

Your whole post is intelligent and well put together though , and deserves a better reply than this, but I thought I'd better do a holding reply because I appreciate your well thought out points , whether I happen to agree with all of them, and I certainly didn't want to just ignore them till tomorrow !

Your posting is a cut above the generally disappointing garbage here, and I thank you for restoring my faith ,( or lingering hope anyway) , that anyone under about 50 can still think for themselves, and I'll add to this tomorrow , God willing.

---

The you made cooy below, is the crux of so many debates , I find the new left as nasty as the awful Tory .

""You're by no means the first person to make the understandable mistake that this means I support or condone the other lot.""

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Heisenberg

In my opinion, I'd have to say that your post was more hyperbolic than anything else.



"Experiment"? Why would you call it that?

Trump may or may not have been elected democratically - for arguments sake, I think he was - but he's doing his best to try to be as un-Presidential as possible and is rightfully being challenged on his harmful domestic and foreign policies, his alleged criminal activities (before and after being sworn into office), his literal thousands of proven lies and his outright bigoted & racist behaviours* - all of which should exclude a person from having executive powers.


I'm not sure why racism is relevant to what we were saying, but more importantly... Have you just invented the 'Left Party'? If you're referring to the Labour party, say 'the Labour party'. I'm definitely on the left side of politics, but I'm not a staunch Labour supporter. In fact, it appears that unlike those who support right-wing ideologies/parties, I don't see the left as being an all-perfect viewpoint or political stance - I just think that it's much better than the opposite side... and as such, I don't agree with everything that Labour stands for.

In fact, if a left/liberal/labour/democratic politician does something wrong - the left, in general don't appear to be as blindly defensive of them - unlike those on the right. As such, the stories about anti-semitism within the Labour party are indeed troubling and there should be consequences, if proven.

Now we've discussed the left - how about the right? The Tory party with their general anti-muslim, anti-black, anti-lgbt, anti-disabled, anti-working class outlook (and the numerous policies that have evolved from them). It's a sad indictment of our country when the Tories are basically the soft-right party in the UK because of UKIP, the BNP, Britain First and all of the other splinter groups from them. It's strange that you don't see many marches from the left protesting against minority groups do you? Or posting racial slurs and threats against minorities online? There must be a reason for that, surely?

It's unsettling that you think that 'the left' call everyone racist when they're losing an argument - instead of just accepting that the majority of the time (not always, obviously... there are definitely times when people can be overly-sensitive or just born an entitled prick and have to be outraged about something - I accept that there are those types on 'both sides') it's just simply pointing out that someone is being a racist * (see: previous mention of the racist, Donald Trump - who is a racist. One more for luck, Donald Trump is a racist).


Is this the fabled Left Party or Labour? I'll be completely honest, nothing of what you've said beyond the word 'now' in the first sentence is making a lot of sense to me. If you could explain it to me in another way, that would be helpful.

You're obviously not a fan of Labour and their links to anti-semitism - but how do you feel about right-wing politics? Don't forget that Jo Cox MP was murdered not so long ago by a far-right extremist because of her views on Europe, and, also be aware of the fact that the biggest domestic terrorist threat in racist Donald Trump's America is also from far-right extremists ("very fine people on both sides" though). This weekend's events haven't shone a positive light on right-wing America either.

If it's boils down to the politics of the left vs the politics of the right, I choose the one which doesn't preach about hate and murder. How about you?

---

Note my reply at top of this page. I did it without quoting and it jumped over the page instead of underneath yours.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

I'm not a fan of anything remotely linked to socialism, which I believe to be an evil and empty philosophy which has caused nothing but death , suffering and dissapointed believers.

---

When you give your more encompassing reply tomorrow, can you also respond to this, please?

I would like to know whether you believe that one of the greatest pieces of socialism in history is evil and causes nothing but death? It's called the National Health Service.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

50% +1 was required to get Britain into the EU but a two-thirds majority should have been the requirement to get out? Is there no end to the twisted reasoning of those who have sulked about the Brexit vote for over three years?

---

50% + 1 is sufficient as far as I'm concerned, but 46.5 million were eligible to vote three years ago so it should be 50 % + 1 of that figure - for referendums like the Scottish Independence one and the one in 2016, we should have had the Australian system whereby everybody has to vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

50% + 1 is sufficient as far as I'm concerned, but 46.5 million were eligible to vote three years ago so it should be 50 % + 1 of that figure - for referendums like the Scottish Independence one and the one in 2016, we should have had the Australian system whereby everybody has to vote.

---

Considering that Brexit will have the most impact, good or bad, on the younger generation and not the over 60s who appeared to have voted for it with much enthusiasm, should it not be logical to everyone that 16 year olds should have been able to vote?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dorcus

Considering that Brexit will have the most impact, good or bad, on the younger generation and not the over 60s who appeared to have voted for it with much enthusiasm, should it not be logical to everyone that 16 year olds should have been able to vote?

---

Is that because you think that 16 year olds are equipped to make sound decisions or because you think they'd vote your way ?
It's the second one , isn't it ?
You want remain votes to count double, votes for schoolchildren or anything else which might reverse the will of the people as expressed in a properly constituted vote. It's all just cheating , isn't it ?

It amazes me that, seemingly without exception, all those who use the phrase "the will of the people" are also fully against any kind of vote about the next brexit step.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RonnieBird

Is that because you think that 16 year olds are equipped to make sound decisions or because you think they'd vote your way ?
It's the second one , isn't it ?
You want remain votes to count double, votes for schoolchildren or anything else which might reverse the will of the people as expressed in a properly constituted vote. It's all just cheating , isn't it ?

---

16 year olds can join the army and work so I think they should be entitled to a vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the other bob wilson

50% + 1 is sufficient as far as I'm concerned, but 46.5 million were eligible to vote three years ago so it should be 50 % + 1 of that figure - for referendums like the Scottish Independence one and the one in 2016, we should have had the Australian system whereby everybody has to vote.

---

But why??? Of what worth is a coerced vote? Are people who don't vote going to look into the policies of the parties that they otherwise have no interest in? Are they even going to be bothered about where they put the cross? It's sheer lunacy in my opinion.