Soho Bikes goes viral as chalkboard message trolls the Daily Mail over Article 50 case coverage

urbane wrote:

Appearently it emerged relatively recently that the civil service, after analysing the Common Market documents, warned the government that the Common Market was a trojan horse for a fiscal and political union but the government corruptly failed to communicate this to the general public, so the majority of voters probably did not give fully informed concent.  If confirmed, this means that all blocks to exiting the EU are probably unlawful and the three judges have shown themselves as negligent or even corrupt, because the judgement is based on fraudulent thus void treaties.

I'm sure the Supreme Court will take this on board.

Incidentally, what fiscal union are we in?

RTB wrote:

...the outcome is way beyond dispute (like a 4-1 win)

How is a ratio of 53 to 47 in any way like 4-1?

There are many good reasons to kick the corporate bankers into touch, but an ability to do basic arithmetic is surely not one of them!

beezus fufoon wrote:

RTB wrote:

...the outcome is way beyond dispute (like a 4-1 win)

How is a ratio of 53 to 47 in any way like 4-1?

There are many good reasons to kick the corporate bankers into touch, but an ability to do basic arithmetic is surely not one of them!

Don't be a plonker.  It is an analogy as in a comparison to illustrate a clear win in a game that in reality was not even close when it got played out even though the losing side were expected to sneak a win.  I have a degree in applied maths and engineering so I think I can work out what a ratio is.  In political terms 52:48 (I think you will find) is a big win, thumping really given the context and attendance.

RTB wrote:

...even though the losing side were expected to sneak a win.  I have a degree in applied maths and engineering so I think I can work out what a ratio is.  In political terms 52:48 (I think you will find) is a big win, thumping really given the context and attendance.

Yes I agree that it's true the losing side were expected to sneak a win, as shown by this quote from Farage, "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way..."

Rapha Nadal wrote:

I thought this was a cycling website?

Erm, is the coffee up to much, anyone...?

Stumps wrote:

There was a quote from a pro EU MP very early in the campaign which basically stated that the country could vote anyway it wanted as ultimately the MP's would have the final say on whether we stayed or left and as the vast majority of MP's wanted to stay then they could dictate.

That in itself is completely undemocratic and that is the worry of most people who voted to leave. Now this has to go in front of the MP's they will block, delay and basically twist this to suit themselves and make it a very drawn out process.   

Actually, that is exactly how our form of democracy works. We have a representative democracy. We democratically elect representatives (MP's) who make decisions for us. If all referendums were legally binding, we would be overriding the democratic system we had. That is why the referendum was advisory. 

Abosulute democracy would mean no parliament, but a dozen referendums every week, hence why we have a representative democracy.

WillRod wrote:

Stumps wrote:

There was a quote from a pro EU MP very early in the campaign which basically stated that the country could vote anyway it wanted as ultimately the MP's would have the final say on whether we stayed or left and as the vast majority of MP's wanted to stay then they could dictate.

That in itself is completely undemocratic and that is the worry of most people who voted to leave. Now this has to go in front of the MP's they will block, delay and basically twist this to suit themselves and make it a very drawn out process.   

 

Actually, that is exactly how our form of democracy works. We have a representative democracy. We democratically elect representatives (MP's) who make decisions for us. If all referendums were legally binding, we would be overriding the democratic system we had. That is why the referendum was advisory. 

Abosulute democracy would mean no parliament, but a dozen referendums every week, hence why we have a representative democracy.

Willrod referendums are rare events, certainly over the past 30-40 years, maybe 4 or 5 if you include the Scottish Independence punt.  Therefore they should be accepted and implemented by parliament.  Everything that went before was and so should this.  It is their duty to implement the people's will especially when it was so comprehensively given. 

The question asked in the referendum was very clear and the implications of what that would mean were equally clear - we leave the EU, the ECJ and the ECHR, parliament once more becomes sovereign and we take full control of what we do with our own borders.  By implication this has to mean leaving the single market unless the EU wants to accept the UK's pre-conditions. 

Sound crazy?  Not necessarily when German industry has so much to lose by not having tariff free trade with the UK.  Then we will see where real power lies and it ain't gonna be with whiskey breath Juncker and his jobs-for-the-boys lamentables.

Stumps wrote:

Its funny how people think. Had one of these judges handed out a 6 month prison sentence  for a fatal rtc involving a cyclist they would be the worst thing since sliced bread and totally out of touch !!!!

Everyone thinks in that 'funny' way though.

It cuts both ways. If major national papers were launching furious personal attacks on judges for a ruling that upset cyclists or any other group the Mail doesn't like, the same people who support this attack would be banging on about the 'rule of law' and the 'independence of the judiciary' etc. Doubtless everyone would swap sides.

The referendum was never said to be binding, only advisory. As far as I can see the judges are correct. Politically, however, it might not go well for MPs who reject its recommendations.

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote.

This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal.

Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent.

Would you do the same in a general election?

Rich_cb wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote. This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal. Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent. Would you do the same in a general election?

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

• quote

Gus T wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote. This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal. Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent. Would you do the same in a general election?

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

• quote

 

You're conveniently - and wholly inaccurately - conflating a referendum to join the EEC with one to join the EU, which didn't happen.

davel wrote:

Gus T wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote. This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal. Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent. Would you do the same in a general election?

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

• quote

 

You're conveniently - and wholly inaccurately - conflating a referendum to join the EEC with one to join the EU, which didn't happen.

Nope, the EEC developed into the EU as a natural progression just like the League of Nations developed into the UN or the WW2 alliance became NATO or the British Empire became the Commonwealth. Life and politics progress all the time.

PS I was anti EEC because it was obvious UK cost of living was going to go up without the matching wages that our future partners were receiving.

Gus T wrote:

davel wrote:

Gus T wrote:

Rich_cb wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote. This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal. Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent. Would you do the same in a general election?

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

• quote

 

You're conveniently - and wholly inaccurately - conflating a referendum to join the EEC with one to join the EU, which didn't happen.

Nope, the EEC developed into the EU as a natural progression just like the League of Nations developed into the UN or the WW2 alliance became NATO or the British Empire became the Commonwealth. Life and politics progress all the time.

PS I was anti EEC because it was obvious UK cost of living was going to go up without the matching wages that our future partners were receiving.

Yes, but it was not a vote to join the EU, as you suggested - the common market and EU are two very different concepts, and Brits never had a vote to join the EU.

I suspect that had the recent referendum been about the common market, a tidy majority would have voted to remain.

Gus T wrote:

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

That is incorrect.

The 1975 referendum only required a simple majority.

Yes achieved 2/3 of the vote albeit on a lower turnout than the 2015 referendum.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_memb...

Rich_cb wrote:

Gus T wrote:

But you conveniently forget that we had to have a 2/3rds majority to join the EU so why shouldn't the same apply to leaving?

That is incorrect. The 1975 referendum only required a simple majority. Yes achieved 2/3 of the vote albeit on a lower turnout than the 2015 referendum. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_European_Communities_memb...

Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't always accurate. The Heath government stated a 60% vote was required to join and to ensure it happened, uncast votes were deemed to be yes votes, a lot of us no voters were up in arms about this but didn't have the legal right to launch challenges against this.

Gus T wrote:

Unfortunately Wikipedia isn't always accurate. The Heath government stated a 60% vote was required to join and to ensure it happened, uncast votes were deemed to be yes votes, a lot of us no voters were up in arms about this but didn't have the legal right to launch challenges against this.

Wikipedia might not be right on everything but it is correct on this.

There was an attempt to introduce an ammendment that would require specific turnout and vote thresholds but it failed.

Here is a link to a paper from the House of Commons library which confirms this.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02809/SN02809.pdf

Rich_cb wrote:

Here is a link to a paper from the House of Commons library...

Classy work, well played!

Rich_cb wrote:

FatBoyW wrote:

we have to look forward to months and years of nonsense due to such an ill judged opinion poll as a straight majority vote on staying or leaving. Should have been set at two thirds majority to ensure it really was a clear mandate. Maybe we should have another opinion poll I mean referendum. Don't forget no referendum has any ability to direct parliament we vote MPs in in a general election, their decisions and votes are what carry legislation not some crazy referendum.

I hear this 2/3rds argument all the time. The problem is that you would need 2 Leave votes to counteract every Remain vote. This overrides the basic principle that all of our votes are equal. Running another referendum just because the result was close also sets a dangerous precedent. Would you do the same in a general election?

Would you do the same in a general election, if there was a hung parliament in all likelihood you would have another election very soon afterwards