Merged Now What?

Status
Not open for further replies.
catsmate said:
Actually it pretty much is.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. Not much point in you including things that are not in the official data as finance either to massage up the number to scarier proportions.

The 2014 data (latest available) is on the OECD statistics site here (you have to select UK). There is also this UK government briefing (PDF). Anyway the number is 8.17% of GVA (very similar to GDP) coming from finance and insurance. That includes the gross value added of everybody's bank account and home and car insurance and so on, plus all credit facilities such as buying a sofa or a car and paying over two years. Not terribly likely that EU27 firms storm in and gobble all the business.
 
uke2se said:
MikeG?
Click to expand...

The CAP raising trade barriers (intentionally or otherwise) to agricultural trade with the third world was a big one for me. That concern may not have been commonly shared, I'll admit. The CFP management of UK fish stocks was another.

Why do you want a list of stuff that people don't like about the EU from me?
 
Francesca R said:
You queried the three quarters fraction and the "whole thing" one. Not how big the financials sector contribution was.
Click to expand...

Oh god, what a crime. I humbly beg your forgiveness for such an heinous oversight.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
Oh god, what a crime. I humbly beg your forgiveness for such an heinous oversight.
Click to expand...

"a heinous oversight". You're not French.

Back on topic .. why is Osborne still in office? Too many bigwigs to lose in such a short time? Who will become Chancellor later in the year?
 
uke2se said:
It was? I could have sworn that "polling the people" (i.e organizing the referendum) was the job of election officials, while the Brexit camp saw their job as misinforming the people into voting 'leave'.
Click to expand...

I'm really not interested in accusations of one side or another. I'm interested in the actual reasons for leaving or remaining, and in the road ahead.

The economy is breaking.
Click to expand...

No it isn't.

uke2se said:
Economics, immigrants and some vague nationalistic concept of sovreignity. What other issues were there?
Click to expand...

Those sound like good points, actually.
 
MikeG said:
The CAP raising trade barriers (intentionally or otherwise) to agricultural trade with the third world was a big one for me. That concern may not have been commonly shared, I'll admit. The CFP management of UK fish stocks was another.

Why do you want a list of stuff that people don't like about the EU from me?
Click to expand...

You called my list incomplete when I asked what else there was. I simply wanted you to answer the question. I'd say both of your examples can be neatly lumped into "economic" via trade. As such, I presume that my list was fairly complete.
 
Argumemnon said:
Ignoring it in favour of a different poll doesn't sound very democratic, either. Should they hold referendums until they get the result you agree with?



Of course they didn't. That's because their mandate was just to poll the population. Now it's time to make a plan.



Why would it be good or ballsy to ignore the result of a popular referendum? "Oops, we didn't expect that result so we'll ignore it"?
Click to expand...


I already gave my justification for that sentiment, which you of course ignored with your editing quotes of my posts, so that you could ask this question with a smarmy tone of superiority over your mature capitulation to the most undemocratic structure of this half-baked referendum's pathetically inept organisation.

It is normal for any referendum which has such fundamental ramifications for the constitutional validity of a state to require more than a simple majority in order to reach a threshold of something like two thirds of the voters. That is because otherwise you lay yourself open to exactly what has happened here, where a large number (but small percentage) of frivolous voters have caused a result which is actively damaging to the large majority of the population.

As happened in Ireland when a close result in a first referendum was overturned in a second, by a much larger majority of people suddenly realising the seriousness of the situation and either changing their minds or getting out to vote when they hadn't bothered in the first, we should have a second referendum. Failing that, Cameron should declare the whole exercise void, as it has in fact failed to represent the will of "the people".

This insistence by supporters of Leave that "the people" have chosen is bs, of course, because so many people never voted, not realising that by that complacency they were going to ruin their lives. Those people should be given the opportunity to vote in a second referendum, which can be run without the bald lies which so distorted the discussion of the "nation".

Insisting that it's too late because you got the result you want is to ignore the actually undemocratic situation prevailing in this country today.
 
asydhouse said:
I already gave my justification for that sentiment, which you of course ignored with your editing quotes of my posts
Click to expand...

I didn't ignore it. Your post did not answer my question.

so that you could ask this question with a smarmy tone of superiority
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you're talking about. The request for a second referendum most certainly is about only accepting an outcome one agrees with.

over your mature capitulation to the most undemocratic structure of this half-baked referendum's pathetically inept organisation.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a lot of words to avoid answering a straight question. Did that make you feel good?

It is normal for any referendum which has such fundamental ramifications for the constitutional validity of a state to require more than a simple majority in order to reach a threshold of something like two thirds of the voters.
Click to expand...

...thus ensuring that change never happens.

This insistence by supporters of Leave that "the people" have chosen is bs
Click to expand...

Yeah, **** democracy.
 
asydhouse said:
It is normal for any referendum which has such fundamental ramifications for the constitutional validity of a state to require more than a simple majority in order to reach a threshold of something like two thirds of the voters. That is because otherwise you lay yourself open to exactly what has happened here
Click to expand...
Not too relevant when this referendum explicitly did not have such threshold requirements.

Cameron should declare the whole exercise void, as it has in fact failed to represent the will of "the people".
Click to expand...
That seems like a very sticky wicket. I suspect the appetite to do that falls some distance under the appetite to press "A50" which does not seem to be high.

Insisting that it's too late because you got the result you want is to ignore the actually undemocratic situation prevailing in this country today.
Click to expand...
I didn't get the result I wanted and I also think it is "too late"
 
asydhouse said:
I already gave my justification for that sentiment, which you of course ignored with your editing quotes of my posts, so that you could ask this question with a smarmy tone of superiority over your mature capitulation to the most undemocratic structure of this half-baked referendum's pathetically inept organisation.

It is normal for any referendum which has such fundamental ramifications for the constitutional validity of a state to require more than a simple majority in order to reach a threshold of something like two thirds of the voters. That is because otherwise you lay yourself open to exactly what has happened here, where a large number (but small percentage) of frivolous voters have caused a result which is actively damaging to the large majority of the population.

As happened in Ireland when a close result in a first referendum was overturned in a second, by a much larger majority of people suddenly realising the seriousness of the situation and either changing their minds or getting out to vote when they hadn't bothered in the first, we should have a second referendum. Failing that, Cameron should declare the whole exercise void, as it has in fact failed to represent the will of "the people".

This insistence by supporters of Leave that "the people" have chosen is bs, of course, because so many people never voted, not realising that by that complacency they were going to ruin their lives. Those people should be given the opportunity to vote in a second referendum, which can be run without the bald lies which so distorted the discussion of the "nation".

Insisting that it's too late because you got the result you want is to ignore the actually undemocratic situation prevailing in this country today.
Click to expand...
That's great but it didn't and it's happened
 
"This Map Shows Why A Pro-EU Party Might Flop At The Next General Election"

The map is a short scroll down the page

Although the referendum result was close nationally, Remain piled up many of its votes in a relatively small number of constituencies (London and Scotland being prime examples). As a result, the UK’s first-past-the-post electoral system would produce an extremely skewed result.

In our projection, Leave would win 421 seats across the UK, while Remain would win just 229.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom