Government to employ mind readers

[EternalOptimist]

If all these *Yes* ers love Europe so much, why don't they all ***** off and go and live there ?

[darmstadt]

If all these *Yes* ers love Europe so much, why don't they all ***** off and go and live there ?

A picture of Europe just for you, BTW, the green bits are European states

[EternalOptimist]

suck on this, squarehead

[EternalOptimist]

heh heh.
who's singing now

[d000hg]

No. I find it obvious that they do not give a sh*t either way.

Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.

[DodgyAgent]

Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.

I am not sure you understand simple logic or simple English. Maybe it is because you are one of gods "chosen" mind readers but to me "not voting" means equally that the individual does not mind either way. If he or she does mind then I do not know what that person really wants and nor do you. Of course you seem to assume that you know what people want without asking them?

So let us look at your argument.

in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed o 18 million voting yes.

Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.

[EternalOptimist]

Not caring means you don't want a change, since change is proactive.

so the tories won a massive landslide at the last election ?

yippee

[VectraMan]

in the last referendum 64% of the eligible electorate voted representing a total of about 26 million out of 41 million eligible voters. 18 million voted to join and 8 million voted not to. That leaves 15 million who did not vote. According to your logic these 15 million would not want change which puts them onto the side of the "NO" vote. Again according to your logic this means that 23 million voted no as opposed to 18 million voting yes.

Can't argue with that.

Your argument defeats itself. Firstly that the original referendum was wrongly conceived thus making our membership null and void. So the referendum we will have next (again according to your logic) should be the other way round. I.e about Britain ("proactively" as you call it) joining the EU. This would mean that anyone who does not vote (according to your logic) would be presumed to be on the side of the No vote.

Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

[DodgyAgent]

Can't argue with that.



Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

Why should people who do not vote be assumed to not want change? I have just made the point that says that according to your argument we should not even be in the EU. Presumably your reason is that your twisted logic is designed to suit your own agenda.

[vetran]

Can't argue with that.



Just because a referendum was done wrong in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't be done right this time. The question is not whether we should have ever been part of the EEC/EU, but whether having been part of the EEC/EU for 30 odd years we're better off leaving now. If we were looking at joining the EU now I'd be saying exactly the same: change should require a clear majority, and those that aren't interested/can't be arsed/didn't know there's a referendum/never watch Eurovision so don't think it concerns them etc. etc. should be assumed not to want a radical change that'll affect their lives.

Unfortunately it will be done wrong, and there's a chance we'll all end up worse off because of a small, vocal minority of Daily Express readers.

your summary assumes the organisation hasn't changed from the original prospectus, here is one that may reflect the changes we have seen.

We joined the Scout association, this quietly changed into 'Hitler Youth' and now we find we are being groomed for conscription into the Waffen SS.

This is still a valid analogy as the EU is intentionally evolving into a superstate and expansion of its powers will continue. The only thing wrong with this analogy is that the SS used to offer you a chance to choose to join the organisation and were clear what you were getting into.