24hrs later, It strikes me that ...

siremoon

Richardj said:

It would be interesting to now list all of the backpedalling and reasons to leave that might not have necessarily been entirely factual (being generous).

Article 50 to leave has to be invoked now.  It's what the majority in the UK, by the result, voted for.

From the news over here the EU wants the UK out asap now that their decision has been made.

Good luck.

It doesn't matter what the EU wants.  The treaty gives us the right to take as long as we like and so we should do it when we are ready and not before.  If the EU doesn't like that then it should have worded Article 50 differently when it was drawn up.  However it is what it is, it isn't going to change and we should use that fact to maximise the benefits to the UK. 

quarky

Chalky

digitalscream;1125321" said:

Chalky said:

I assumed he voted Remain. Sadly he's insignificant in my life so I don't monitor what he thinks. Still a bullshit analysis.





So...you're totally aware that basically everything you've just said was wrong, but you're still sticking to it.

Nice one, Einstein.

No. Applying statistical significance to the outcome of democratic system where the rule of that system is 50% plus one vote wins, is still bullshit. If that is too advanced for you let me know, Einstein.

And remember Rule #1, mate?

Sporky

Chalky said:

If Remain had won on the same figures in reverse you would not be spouting such bullshit.

I can't speak for anyone else, but if the result had been remain by a similarly small margin I'd have felt that it was inconclusive, on the basis that it showed clear unrest and a lack of any overall national feeling on the matter.

I'd also still have felt that both official campaigns were pretty awful; the remain campaign for relying on fear, and the leave campaign for relying on things they'd backtrack on the moment they won.

digitalscream

Chalky said:

No. Applying statistical significance to the outcome of democratic system where the rule of that system is 50% plus one vote wins, is still bullshit. If that is too advanced for you let me know, Einstein.

And remember Rule #1, mate?

I'm fully aware of the rules.

My point is that sticking to your conclusion even though you're fully aware that your reasoning was wrong isn't the sign of an intelligent argument.

It's almost like voting to leave because of immigration even though all of the available facts say that immigration won't change one bit.

Actually, no. It's exactly like that.

Chalky

But my reasoning was not "That's bullshit because you voted Remain".

My reasoning was "Applying statistical significance to the outcome of democratic system where the rule of that system is 50% plus one vote wins, is bullshit".

My assumption and assertion for his motivation for making the analysis was incorrect. But my attack on his analysis was not.

And the relevance of the topic of immigration is, er, what exactly? Or was it just an emotional outburst on your part?

digitalscream

Chalky said:

But my reasoning was not "That's bullshit because you voted Remain".

Pretty damn close:

Chalky said:

If Remain had won on the same figures in reverse you would not be spouting such bullshit.

?

Chalky said:

And the relevance of the topic of immigration is, er, what exactly? Or was it just an emotional outburst on your part?

The relevance is just taking a recent historical example to show the stupidity of your logic.

Fretwired

Shouldn't this thread be closed or renamed 48 hours later?

TTony

Fretwired said:

Shouldn't this thread be closed or renamed 48 hours later?

I think we could just copy & paste it from now until eternity.

I doubt that the understanding or the arguments will change much with time.

Chalky

digitalscream;1125364" said:

Chalky said:

But my reasoning was not "That's bullshit because you voted Remain".





Pretty damn close:




Chalky said:

If Remain had won on the same figures in reverse you would not be spouting such bullshit.





?




Chalky said:And the relevance of the topic of immigration is, er, what exactly? Or was it just an emotional outburst on your part?





The relevance is just taking a recent historical example to show the stupidity of your logic.

You clearly think those two sentences you juxtaposed say the same thing. Relax, I blame the education system, not you.

Try this:
I got drunk so my singing was rubbish
I got drunk so I was singing rubbish.
Now do you see the difference?

Further clue - quality of song = quality of analysis.

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said: The attitude of people like @TTony is appalling. Democracy is only acceptable to them when it comes up with the 'right' answer.

https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/65732534.jpg

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn;1125416" said:

Chalky said: The attitude of people like @TTony is appalling. Democracy is only acceptable to them when it comes up with the 'right' answer.



https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/65732534.jpg

Why would I take offence when someone I neither know nor care about calls me a "cockwomble"?

Ianpdq

Who said the BBC was not bias and it still made no differance !!  18 Dec 2015: The BBC has admitted taking more than £2 million in European Union funding over the past three years, in a move that critics said called into doubt the corporation’s impartiality over the forthcoming European referendum. The broadcaster said it had taken the cash under the European Union framework programme, to fund its research and development arm, which is working on projects such as 3D broadcasting, and ultra-high definition filming. The BBC is not allowed to spend the money on programme-making or newsgathering, and corporation sources insisted that the grants helped the entire broadcasting sector develop new technology, and had no impact on editorial decisions. But critics of the corporation said that accepting any EU funding in the run-up to the referendum, expected before the end of 2017, was inappropriate. Andrew Bridgen, a Conservative MP and a stern critic of the corporation, said: “Everyone knows that the BBC has an inbuilt pro-EU bias, but it should be above reproach during this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to vote on the future of our relationship with Europe. It already receives £3.7 billion from the licence fee, and taking EU funding unavoidably creates the impression that it is being paid to do the EU’s bidding

Heartfeltdawn

Chalky said:

Why would I take offence when someone I neither know nor care about calls me a "cockwomble"?

You shouldn't. This is simple meme posting because I find you amusing. 

Wazmeister

dindude said:

The decision is the decision, I don't see what was complicated about it. Do you want to be part of the EU or don't you? The debate debacle and miss-information is par for the course and no different to a general election campaign. I agree with @Wazmeister, those voting leave can't now claim ignorance. 

The problem is that the decision (due to its complexity) should never have been put in the hands of the general public, it was political suicide and Cameron needs to (and has) taken full responsibility for it, although he's left us in the shit.

If you cut through the BS, it was clear to see that any political leader and any business leader of any substance and integrity was saying remain. The signals weren't hard to see, but armchair Britain nethertheless knew best.

A new referendum would be a joke. We'd be better off if a strong leader came in and said, sorry, I'm ignoring this result, hate me now, thank me in 10 years.

A brilliant summary, and people who voted out and now are saying "oh, I never realised..." Should take this in...

@Dindude has identified THE biggest issue of it all here; STRONG GOVERNMENT is what is needed in the absense of the EU... And (as a Labour voter all my life is grieves me to say) we have just lost our strongest leader for a while in Cameron...

LastMantra

Am I the only person that couldn't care less about any of this pish?

bodhi

Now is probably a good time to start caring, mate.

ICBM

LastMantra said:

Am I the only person that couldn't care less about any of this pish?

No, 28% of the electorate agree with you. Only 9% less than the number who think we should leave the EU.

Although we can't tell whether they don't care, genuinely didn't know, or couldn't be bothered to vote because they thought it was a foregone conclusion.

I expect quite a lot are regretting not voting now too. (Not including you, obviously.)

LastMantra

TBH if it wasn't for this place I wouldn't have known it happened.

Emp_Fab

Personally, I think that a) there shouldn't have been a referendum at all. Cameron has steered the country towards the rocks as a side-effect of his election carrot dangling "Vote for me and I'll give you a referendum".  b) OK, so we had a referendum - BUT - both campaigns were disgraceful. We've ended up with a result that is statistically ridiculous and we are about to head down a road that half of the country doesn't want. 

Why do so many polls require a minimum of two-thirds majority ? Many countries require 55% as a minimum. Even the EU itself has mechanisms in place to avoid scenarios like ours.. "In the European Union, double majority voting is a form of Qualified Majority Voting which is to apply to almost all policy areas starting in 2014 under the Treaty of Lisbon. Any decision taken under this scheme will require the support of at least 55% of the Council of the European Union members who must also represent at least 65% of the EU's citizens"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_majority?wprov=sfla1 ;

Yet, here we are with half the country feeling unrepresented and bitter because it's very difficult to accept and get behind a decision that is so close as this. Had it been 60/40 one way or the other there would be acceptance.