• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Brexit bill passed into law, House of Lords to go.

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #61
    The Enemies of the peopleLords confident of derailing Brexit timetable

    Look forward to the Daily Mail "frothing at the mouth"

    I'm alright Jack

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by GB9 View Post
      Good on then. Sell me how one side only needing 40% to win is fair? Or is it only when it's the side you support?
      It's not like a GE; there was no deadline or necessity to have a referendum, and therefore if there's doubt the status quo should prevail. As NAT said if there'd been a requirement for a 60/40 vote then it would have put an end to any doubt as to how accurately the result really represented the wishes of the people, which there is. It was close enough that you have to say that on a different day it might have gone differently. No greater luminary than Nigel Farage agreed as he said that if it was 52% Remain he'd be calling for a second referendum (of course he changed his mind once he won).

      I think with hindsight you could say to be fair to everyone that a result of <60% would trigger a second referendum (which would be by simple majority and decide it) a year later, and then whatever happened at least everybody could say they tried everything possible to get an accurate opinion. The closeness of the result points to the fact that most probably didn't understand what they were voting for, and although another year of arguments would have been tedious, maybe everybody would have calmed the **** down and we might have had a more sensible debate and a better informed electorate.

      If ifs and ands were pots and pans...
      Will work inside IR35. Or for food.

      Comment


        #63
        GB9 asked a question about a scenario, he was given accurate reasoned answers, with examples, and behaves like someone has stolen his favourite toys. When will these people understand that they have won?

        Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
        It's not like a GE; there was no deadline or necessity to have a referendum, and therefore if there's doubt the status quo should prevail. As NAT said if there'd been a requirement for a 60/40 vote then it would have put an end to any doubt as to how accurately the result really represented the wishes of the people, which there is. It was close enough that you have to say that on a different day it might have gone differently. No greater luminary than Nigel Farage agreed as he said that if it was 52% Remain he'd be calling for a second referendum (of course he changed his mind once he won).

        I think with hindsight you could say to be fair to everyone that a result of <60% would trigger a second referendum (which would be by simple majority and decide it) a year later, and then whatever happened at least everybody could say they tried everything possible to get an accurate opinion. The closeness of the result points to the fact that most probably didn't understand what they were voting for, and although another year of arguments would have been tedious, maybe everybody would have calmed the **** down and we might have had a more sensible debate and a better informed electorate.

        If ifs and ands were pots and pans...
        If my aunty had bollix she'd be my uncle.
        Down with racism. Long live miscegenation!

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
          The Enemies of the peopleLords confident of derailing Brexit timetable

          Look forward to the Daily Mail "frothing at the mouth"

          There was never much doubt about that. Afterall, it's the job of the Lords to ask the Gov't to think again. Ping-pong is normal. The real question is what happens when the Commons reject the amendments and the Lords reject that decision, in infinite loop. I think it's highly unlikely. They will ask the Gov't to rethink once, which is what the timetable allows. Any more than that, and there will be a nuclear option (stuff the Lords, GE,...), because the Parliament Act takes too long.

          Comment


            #65
            Originally posted by BlasterBates View Post
            (*) as one commenter on that article described them.
            Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by NotAllThere View Post
              GB9 asked a question about a scenario, he was given accurate reasoned answers, with examples, and behaves like someone has stolen his favourite toys. When will these people understand that they have won?

              If my aunty had bollix she'd be my uncle.
              I appreciated your accurate reasoned answers. However, they didn't wash.

              There is absolutely no reason I can see why there should be any skew to remain.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by The_Equalizer View Post
                So this should be the case for Indy2?
                Absolutely.

                When it comes to referendum a clear majority should be in favour. Not 2 or 3%. Otherwise you'll have a divided nation until kingdom come. Scotland remains a very divided country even four years later. You think the remainers are just going to go away? The Brexiters will die off shortly leaving behind an even larger remain group.
                "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

                Comment


                  #68
                  Originally posted by VectraMan View Post
                  I voted for the pro-EU, Cameron led, pro-austerity Tories, and as far as I'm concerned that's the government I'd like to still have. Labelling what we have now as Tory is kind of unfair; it's a UKIP government, and one nobody voted for. Yes I know we voted for the party and not the person, blah blah blah, but a new leader shouldn't be able to fundamentally change direction in the middle of their term. That amounts to a coup d'etat.

                  Not that a GE would change much at this point. It'd probably give UKIP an even bigger majority.
                  I don't think you'd know Cameron and May were part of the same party, very different. May is much more right leaning. She'll torch the house if she does not get her way.
                  "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by GB9 View Post
                    We have GEs every few years.
                    Few means 3. GE occur every 5 years.
                    "Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience". Mark Twain

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Originally posted by scooterscot View Post
                      Few means 3. GE occur every 5 years.
                      In theory it is now 5 years. This is by-passable with a little effort.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X