Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
On a more serious note I hope the Brexit isnt a sign of things to come in the US. A platform built on fears of outsiders, jigonism and some may even say plain racism spearheadded by the older well off segment of the population, clearly on the Right of the politisphere; sounds uncomfortably similar to a platform being endorsed by a certain overripe orange with a bad case of mold on the top
Nothing to worry about. People have tried to succeed from our Union before- and, well...
Spoiler:
The American South is crazy, but it ain't dumb.
In case of the EU. the the entry (or re-entry) is made per public consent of a country. not by force.
in case of the USA. it worths yet another thread.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on, especially when you account for the fact that those who will be least affected by the decision are the ones who have voted for it whilst those who will face the brunt of any detrimental affects will be those who didn't want it in the first place.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:30:48
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
That was the majority that the vote passed by not the total who voted for leaving.
If there was to be a minimum majority to provide a satisfactory result this should have been agreed beforehand.
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.
This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:30:17
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
That was the majority that the vote passed by not the total who voted for leaving.
If there was to be a minimum majority to provide a satisfactory result this should have been agreed beforehand.
IMO it would need at least 17 million signatures for this to have any legitimacy because otherwise that's the number of people whose view is being ignored?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:32:26
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.
This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.
Actually, I wouldn't. If you wanted to keep protesting and ask for another referendum then that is within your rights.
Also, a slim majority wanting to keep the current status quo is very different to a slim majority wanting to potentially throw our country into severe economic turmoil, as IronCaptain pointed out on a previous page.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:33:10
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.
This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.
Actually, I wouldn't. If you wanted to keep protesting and ask for another referendum then that is within your rights.
Also, a slim majority wanting to keep the current status quo is very different to a slim majority wanting to potentially throw our country into severe economic turmoil, as IronCaptain pointed out on a previous page.
What would have been a satisfactory majority? Again this should have been done prior to the vote if people had concerns about the size of any majority.
Previous EU referendum have ben carried out on slimmer majorities:
French (1992) 51.1 % In favour.
Denmark (1992) against 50.7 %
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:43:01
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Another factor to consider is that holding an extra referendum would look very indecisive on the international stage, which would be even worse than our current image of being an immature crybaby.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.
This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.
Actually, I wouldn't. If you wanted to keep protesting and ask for another referendum then that is within your rights.
Also, a slim majority wanting to keep the current status quo is very different to a slim majority wanting to potentially throw our country into severe economic turmoil, as IronCaptain pointed out on a previous page.
What would have been a satisfactory majority? Again this should have been done prior to the vote if people had concerns about the size of any majority.
Previous EU referendum have ben carried out on slimmer majorities:
French (1992) 51.1 % In favour.
Denmark (1992) against 50.7 %
Super majority is the usual baseline for people to say 'OK, not what I wanted, but a lot of people seem to think otherwise, so it's not worth the effort to try and change the result'. Looking at 67% as a minimum or close to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 12:56:54
Fair enough but why did no-one get this sorted prior to a vote?
What would happen if you can't get that level of majority?
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.
According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.
This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.
Actually, I wouldn't. If you wanted to keep protesting and ask for another referendum then that is within your rights.
Also, a slim majority wanting to keep the current status quo is very different to a slim majority wanting to potentially throw our country into severe economic turmoil, as IronCaptain pointed out on a previous page.
In fact Farage said before the vote that if it was close he would keep asking for another refurendum. It was asked for before (the petition that is now going round was started in May). Given what has now come out I suspect we would have a diffrent result if the refurendum was re-run today. A lot of people are realising how much they were lied too.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
As a out voter who vacillated between in and out for weeks, the reaction from some within the remain camp has confirmed all my fears. A bunch of middle class elite snobs who can't stand the fact that poorer people have stood up to them and now they are embarking on a bullying campaign that shows clearly how undemocratic they are. Where is your national spirit?? Come on guys lets move forward, this country has come through much worse and survived. Not getting your own way isn't cause to behave like a child.
The petition, set up by William Oliver Healey, states: "We the undersigned call upon HM Government to implement a rule that if the Remain or Leave vote is less than 60%, based on a turnout less than 75%, there should be another referendum."
This petition is moving the goalposts after the result, conditions like this should have been laid down clearly beforehand. Just how many referenda are we expected to have until these conditions are met by one side or the other? It's simply undemocratic and smacks of the wealthy and political elite insisting we repeat voting until we get the desired result. I don't believe we were lied to, I don't recall anyone saying that every penny of the £350m a week would go into the NHS.
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Sounds like sour grapes.
It's completely undemocratic to hold another referendum, not to mention a giant waste of taxpayers money.
When you say a mere 4% difference, it makes it sound a lot smaller than the actual 1.2 million people more that disagree with your side of it.
Well Europe has a history of holding referendum until they get the result those in power want - however I think that it has already gone to far to be overturned.
Could be wrong.
Nah, the reaction seems to be pretty unanimous - Europe want rid. I only hope we can persuade them to let Scotland stay in.
EDIT: As for this rerun thing - sorry, no, doesn't work that way. There has to be some significant change in circumstances to justify another vote, "buyer's remorse" isn't sufficient. English Remainers need to pause for a moment and then redirect that energy you're feeling into preventing the anti-immigrant hard right claiming the victory and setting the narrative. The minority of Leavers that are just scumbags are already apparently feeling emboldened enough to start shouting at "foreigners" on the street and posting "Polish vermin out" cards through letterboxes, that needs to be nipped in the bud sharpish, and the best way to do that is to drop the "all Brexiters are obviously secretly animated by latent racism/are ignorant uneducated fools" attitude that's been floating about like a heavy fart since the vote and engage with them.
The middle-class professional-type left ignored and marginalised lots of communities that have spent the last fifty years being hammered over and over again; the death of national industry, the shift to a tech-based service economy they weren't skilled for, kids who joined the army for a career ending up dying in the middle east for lies, the financial crash, austerity...these folk mostly aren't racist or even bigoted, not at the core, what they are is angry, desperate, and ignored. But people in that state, regardless of where they sit on the socioeconomic spectrum, are easily manipulated by ideologues who offer them a straightforward, seemingly plausible reason for their plight, and an equally straightforward solution. You can think they're misinformed, but they didn't get that way by accident - the metropolitan left abandoned the narrative to the Murdoch press and the Tory right, if Leave voters are misinformed it's because the right-on brigade and the capital-captured Labour centrists allowed their fears and concerns to fester and the only prospect of acknowledgement let alone resolution be presented as leaving the EU.
Not all Leavers fit that demographic, plenty will have voted for honestly-held political conviction, and a few are the actual racist scumbags, but without that angry, disenfranchised bloc abandoned by the be-suited incarnation of modern Labour I doubt the Leave vote would have passed 35% nationwide. So learn the lesson, get out there and listen to those communities, start the work of persuading them there's an alternative explanation and a better solution for them and their families, make the best of the situation and bide your time - not a year ago we were pretty much resigned to limiting ourselves to arguing for greater devolution for the foreseeable future, now circumstances have changed and we have a second chance; that may well happen for Remainers as well, but it can't be forced.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 13:54:02
"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal
Crazyterran wrote: Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?
Sounds like sour grapes.
It's completely undemocratic to hold another referendum, not to mention a giant waste of taxpayers money.
When you say a mere 4% difference, it makes it sound a lot smaller than the actual 1.2 million people more that disagree with your side of it.
Well Europe has a history of holding referendum until they get the result those in power want - however I think that it has already gone to far to be overturned.
Could be wrong.
Nah, the reaction seems to be pretty unanimous - Europe want rid. I only hope we can persuade them to let Scotland stay in.
The amount of times today I Had to tell a leaver that most of what they have been told is a lie, and tell them how many benefits you lose if you leave the european union is insane.
You lose protection of workers, and protection against monopolies the people who win in this scenario are the rich. Only the Rich.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pistols at Dawn wrote: Internet petitions are well known for their 100% success rate in changing policy.
Minus the fact that this is on the offical petition page for parliament.
SOPA and PIPA were a clossal failure because of the internet petitions out there to prevent them.
If you are going to make broad statements have evidence to back those statements up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 13:34:22
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Knockagh wrote: As a out voter who vacillated between in and out for weeks, the reaction from some within the remain camp has confirmed all my fears. A bunch of middle class elite snobs who can't stand the fact that poorer people have stood up to them and now they are embarking on a bullying campaign that shows clearly how undemocratic they are. Where is your national spirit?? Come on guys lets move forward, this country has come through much worse and survived. Not getting your own way isn't cause to behave like a child.
Basically my position too. The level of moon-howling drama has been quite unedifying. I can understand being annoyed that your side lost, but I have heard some spectacularly stupid things in the last 24 hours. Some guy saying "I'm glad I got to see Vienna and Paris when I had the chance". FFS, you'd have thought we suddently turned into North Korea overnight.
Selym wrote: Another factor to consider is that holding an extra referendum would look very indecisive on the international stage, which would be even worse than our current image of being an immature crybaby.
I don't think that will send that message at all.
And what will happen is that a minor cabinet functionary will write a short paragraph explaining how referendums work and post in on the site.
We are talking about 1.5 million people writing to Parliament. That is not something they can simply ignore.
And referendums can be redone fora revote. BECAUSE THAT IS DEMOCRACY.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Democracy is people going with what the majority of the people want. You can't cry about it, knock your cornflakes over and scream it's not fair and expect people to go the other way.
12 million people HAD their chance to vote and they did not do so.
It was totally send the message that we are an indecisive bunch of idiots. We have made our decision, now we must live it with.
DS:90-S+G+++M++B-IPw40k03+D+A++/fWD-R++T(T)DM+ Warmachine MKIII record 39W/0D/6L
Selym wrote: Another factor to consider is that holding an extra referendum would look very indecisive on the international stage, which would be even worse than our current image of being an immature crybaby.
I don't think that will send that message at all.
And what will happen is that a minor cabinet functionary will write a short paragraph explaining how referendums work and post in on the site.
We are talking about 1.5 million people writing to Parliament. That is not something they can simply ignore.
And referendums can be redone fora revote. BECAUSE THAT IS DEMOCRACY.
What if 1.6 million people subsequently sign a petition saying to ignore the first one? Considering Leave got the majority with over 15 million people, I don't think that would be difficult to arrange.
I mean, clearly democracy should triumph and the second petition nullify the first, right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 14:01:24
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Alright then. By that logic, I demand a by-election for my constituency. Nevermind the fact that I voted against my Labour MP and lost, we should have a second election so we can vote again "with more facts and information". Re-running referendums and elections simply because one side doesn't like the fact that it lost devalues the very idea of democracy and will ultimately be its downfall. Once you set a precedent, it will be used against you in future one day to overturn a decision that you won.
No it's completely different, that it is one term for five years and the principle is that overall the proportion of votes balances out; in theory 50% of the vote results in 50% of the seats then debate the issues. Even if you don't support the Labour MP then there is still the alternative MP to be able to talk to. In this case you have a decision that is going to last 20+ years, have a lasting effect regardless and 50% of the vote have no choice but to go along with it (unless maybe 50% of the English population turn up on Germany's doorstep and ask to be refugees which would be quite ironic). The problem with our current parliamentary election system is that the first past the post method is antiquated and only works when you have two parties. Now we have a situation where the incumbent party out of its own hubris, which got 33% of the share of the votes which gained them 55% of the seats, forced a referendum on the electorate which 50% of the population doesn't agree with, which will likely result in the permanent separation of UK and Scotland and with high risk that the issues in NI could be turned back 20 years. If you had a proper proportional representative system you would have had an MP in your area you could have voted for and could still represent you and these issue would be discussed in more balance.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: What if we do hold a 2nd referendum in a years time, and the Remain vote wins...but then the EU not only turns around and outright rejects any future reforms, but they also manage to force the Euro, an EU army and further European integration on us? Should we then hold a third referendum? After all, we'll have had more facts and information after the 2nd referendum, because the EU will have shown its true colours.
The UK has an automatic veto on joining the Euro. If we remained in the EU that was enshrined in their policy (which we could again veto if they tried to change). We would never have had to join the Euro!
What is wrong with an EU army? The idea of the EU army is that it can support all the member states even if one is infringed. Take the Falklands (and remember there was no help from NATO here) for example if, which I hope never happens, it is again invaded we would be on our own in dealing with it. The idea of the EU army is that if it happened the invading state would have to deal with not just us, but the whole of the EU. That would make any state take pause before they implemented their action. It is meant to be their as a deterrent because of simply strength in numbers. On the other hand if there is an argument about Gibraltar in the future we would be facing the whole EU army...We were already doing this, we are already using French Aircraft carriers and they our units. We provide defensive forces for east European countries etc, hell we have provided defensive forces for eastern and central European countries for the last 70 years as deterrents, it's nothing new.
I'm not sure what parts of EU integration you are worried about, which piece of legislation is it that concerns you? What if a an EU wide energy grid was created where thermal and solar power could be provided by southern states and wind, wave, tidal by the northern. It would leave every member state less reliant on resolving it's own energy needs (remember ours are getting close to crisis point and the new Hinkley point is not yet funded and god knows what will happen to it now, even if I disagree with using Nuclear power). It should make it more effective and efficient and overall a lower cost to the consumer. What would be so wrong with this?
However regardless of all this by being in the EU you have a voice in how it is planned, we as a country get a voice. When we leave we lose this. If we decide to join again in the future (and given the polls that show young people are massively in favour of the EU currently I would expect this) there would be no choice. No vetos; it will be full joining of the EU or nothing; we will have to take all the rules there would be no exceptions we would lose the pound and the areas of integration we have vetoed out of. In some ways by voting out now effectively will force deeper integration on us that you don't like in the future in 15+ years or so.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Clearly this a case of sore losers trying to overturn a fair vote that did not go their way.
I don't think there are any 'sore losers', there are worried losers, losers wondering what it means for their future and the country maybe. That so many people are voting shows the strength of the feeling on this, how passionately they are concerned about the UKs direction. Also the way I voted was the way I feel now in that I never thought the referendum was a good idea in the first place; I am not an expert do not know all the issues, that is why I voted for a MP to do this for me.
"Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. " - V
I've just supported the Permanent European Union Citizenship initiative. Please do the same and spread the word!
"It's not a problem if you don't look up." - Dakka's approach to politics
Selym wrote: Another factor to consider is that holding an extra referendum would look very indecisive on the international stage, which would be even worse than our current image of being an immature crybaby.
I don't think that will send that message at all.
And what will happen is that a minor cabinet functionary will write a short paragraph explaining how referendums work and post in on the site.
We are talking about 1.5 million people writing to Parliament. That is not something they can simply ignore.
And referendums can be redone fora revote. BECAUSE THAT IS DEMOCRACY.
What if 1.6 million people subsequently sign a petition saying to ignore the first one? Considering Leave got the majority with over 15 million people, I don't think that would be difficult to arrange.
I mean, clearly democracy should triumph and the second petition nullify the first, right?
IF you really think that is how it works then fine. So be it, it is your country.
IF you wish to lose all of your rights with the EU that is fine.
I personally think it is a mistake and will leave an extremely weakened Britian, and possible a super power in the East. Waiting, and waiting for the right moment.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
When this petition gets more signatories than the 17 million people who voted to Leave, then and only then will you have a valid point. It is NOT Democracy if a minority of people signing a petition (some 1 to 2 million people) have the right to overrule the votes of 17 million people.
If you successfully overturn the result of the first referendum with a second referendum, then I'll demand a third referendum. Be careful what you wish for - overturning a referendum will set a dangerously anti-democratic precedent that will be used against you in future.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When this petition gets more signatories than the 17 million people who voted to Leave, then and only then will you have a valid point. It is NOT Democracy if a minority of people signing a petition (some 1 to 2 million people) have the right to overrule the votes of 17 million people.
If you guys successfully overturn the result of the first referendum with a second referendum, then I'll demand a third referendum.
Then you have 16 million PEOPLE who do not want this versus the 17 million who want to stay. Its pretty close in percentages, as I have said, if thats what you want for your country then that is fine, you just have to deal with alot of the consequences of leaving the EU.
IE losing workers rights, and protections from large corporations and other things that you enjoy now.
EU gives alot of money to poorer regions and those poorer regions will suffer because of it.
Because in the end many people I know have financially benefited from this.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 14:22:10
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When this petition gets more signatories than the 17 million people who voted to Leave, then and only then will you have a valid point. It is NOT Democracy if a minority of people signing a petition (some 1 to 2 million people) have the right to overrule the votes of 17 million people.
If you guys successfully overturn the result of the first referendum with a second referendum, then I'll demand a third referendum.
Then you have 16 million PEOPLE who do not want this versus the 17 million who want to stay. Its pretty close in precentages, as I have said, if thats what you want for your country than that is fine, you just have to deal with alot of the consequences of leaving the EU.
Well no fething gak, Sherlock. I'm not the one complaining that a national vote did not go my way. It is not me who is refusing to deal with the consequences, it is the people demanding a second vote simply because they failed to get the result they wanted.
I know this will damage the British economy in the short term, and perhaps even in the long term. Thats a price I am willing to pay, to preserve my country's future as an independent and sovereign nation state. I am prepared to deal with the consequences.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 14:22:31
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?
But the boogeyman, Russia, might potentiall gain from this! You can't do what you want Britain! (Because that's what he said in his last post, a superpower in the east watching and waiting...)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/25 14:25:54
warboss wrote: Is there a permanent stickied thread for Chaos players to complain every time someone/anyone gets models or rules besides them? If not, there should be.
Calling someone a 'Little Englander'under its current context is basically like calling someone the n-word.
Another one of your little gems Orlanth.
I posted this already but as you evidently missed it.
"Little Englander" is an epithet applied in criticisms of British nationalists, English nationalists, or English people who are regarded as xenophobic and/or overly nationalistic and are often accused of being "ignorant" and "boorish". It is sometimes applied to opponents of globalism, multilateralism and internationalism, such as those who are against membership in the European Union.
The leave campaign in a nutshell.
It is a term of racist stereotyping. Those are bad you know.
Many people voted leave for reasons other than xenophobia or flag waving nationalism. Though I rest my point that flag waving nationalism is not of itself evil and is in many places treasured.
It is not suprising you edited down my comment to one line to remove the gist of the argument.
Scots and Americans and others can wave their flags and be nationalistic, and its called 'being proud of their culture', if the English do it its assumed to be some form of far right extremism. you make the distinction of motive solely on race.
Ultimately you have:
- Posted flat racial stereotypes to denegrate a people group you dislike.
- Assumed those who voted leave fit your bigoted assumptions and descriptions.
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: When this petition gets more signatories than the 17 million people who voted to Leave, then and only then will you have a valid point. It is NOT Democracy if a minority of people signing a petition (some 1 to 2 million people) have the right to overrule the votes of 17 million people.
If you guys successfully overturn the result of the first referendum with a second referendum, then I'll demand a third referendum.
Then you have 16 million PEOPLE who do not want this versus the 17 million who want to stay. Its pretty close in precentages, as I have said, if thats what you want for your country than that is fine, you just have to deal with alot of the consequences of leaving the EU.
Well no fething gak, Sherlock. I'm not the one complaining that a national vote did not go my way. It is not me who is refusing to deal with the consequences, it is the people demanding a second vote simply because they failed to get the result they wanted.
I know this will damage the British economy in the short term, and perhaps even in the long term. Thats a price I am willing to pay, to preserve my country's future as an independent and sovereign nation state. I am prepared to deal with the consequences.
You know before the viper uncoils its teeth and strikes out and dooms us all. There is a certain country that benefits quite a bit from this.
And yes it may seem good now, just wait in twenty years. If you think that your national identity was threatened because of an elected delegates who were voted in by you and your people because they were imposing on your sovereignty then that is up to you. Just know that means your country is now split. Which is a very bad thing. Which sends a big flag to Russia and another Nation State that you are weak on the world stage.
From whom are unforgiven we bring the mercy of war.
Crazyterran wrote: I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?
But the boogeyman, Russia, might potentiall gain from this! You can't do what you want Britain! (Because that's what he said in his last post, a superpower in the east watching and waiting...)
But America also has rules in place which require changes this big to be voted for by a larger majority of the population, else they fail.
So a referendum in which 52% voted for a repeal of the Second Amendment, for example, would fail as it didn't reach the required amount.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/25 14:31:55
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
EAT - SLEEP - FARM - REPEAT 
