Someone here will hopefully have the answer, Padraig - I'm afraid this is the sort of situation where I give my friendly local PC Doctor (that's what he calls himself, an expert friend would do) a call to get him to come and do something behind the scenes - sounds as if something needs to be deleted? He does charge, but it's less frustrating and stressful.
Recommended Television Programmes
Collapse
X
-
Richard Tarleton
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostWe are in a right old mess, it would seem.
But there are a lot of people out there who voted leave,in good faith, and in a considered way, and whose faith in democracy will be very badly shaken if, for example , we revoke A50.
This may be the least of several evils, but it isn‘t to be taken lightly.
A second referendum, the actual deal ( ideally with controls in parliament on how the future relationship is negotiated ) or Remain seems to me to be the most honest, most democratic solution at this point if not ideal.
But of course we all have our own answer to this, as parliament has shown .
I would hope also, that our friends in the EU offer the hand of friendship in the coming weeks. Our people, if not our politicians , deserve it. I feel sure we would do so if another country was in this situation.
I read Larry Elliott regularly, and David Aaronovitch, but... it is usually - 1922 Committee (oh, love the name...) ERG, Mark Francois, Rees-Mogg, Farage etc who get their views discussed, attended to....
And the proven illegality of the Leave/Beleave Campaign (Facebook, Cambridge Analytica etc, see Carole Cadwalladr in last Sunday's Observer) remains largely, shockingly unaddressed... is the government/opposition etc simply too scared to open that up?
But how many know about it? Isn't it a reason to hold another referendum in itself?Last edited by jayne lee wilson; 21-03-19, 17:16.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View Post
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Bryn View PostOver 1.1 million now.
No further comment necessary...
Comment
-
-
It takes a rare conjunction of incompetence, ignorance and malign influences to come up with a situation which is disliked so much by both sides of the divide, rather than just the one expected.
Regardless of the eventual outcome, extensive and longlasting(I hope not irreparable) damage has been done to our political relationship with Europe, although I get the impression that there is a considerable amount of sympathy for the people of the UK subjected to this - well choose your own preferred description - omnishambles seems appropriate and not as offensive as some.
Comment
-
-
Although the current situation is shambolic, and its effects until now in terms of th UKs relationships seem to be pretty negative, and some might say seriously negative, there is nothing to say that good may not eventually come of it all. A more realistic among the powerful in the UK of our place in the world might be one. A final push over the line of dissatisfaction with FPTP would be another, *and throw in a more positive view of the EU if they help dig us out of the mess. And so on.
And the EU isn’t just unpopular in its current configuration with just some UK hardliners.....it is under scrutiny continent wide, and it is going to have to deal with this, perhaps sooner rather than later. I remain , despite all the difficulties that we all see at a personal level, cautiously hopeful.
Edit....
Very much despite the FT Article which says that May has decided to go for no deal if the WA isn’t ratified.
* ...and the tory party torn apart might be the best of all.......Last edited by teamsaint; 21-03-19, 20:02.I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.
I am not a number, I am a free man.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint View PostEdit....
Very much despite the FT Article which says that May has decided to go for no deal if the WA isn’t ratified.
* ...and the tory party torn apart might be the best of all.......
Agree about shambolic. However, I figured that it is possible (though very unlikely) that there could be situations in which no outcome could ever arise with a majority. Consider an electorate with n! members and n things to choose from. It would be possible to have an exact division of the electorate amongst all the voters, so none of the options would win. An arbitrary choice of one to reject could be made, though would not be "democratic" - since the whole exercise would not be repeatable. Then there would be n-1 choices - but again it would be possible that the electorate would be evenly split between the choices. An arbitrary discard could be applied - but that wouldn't be democratic. The point is that it is possible to have situations in which there is no overall majority at any stage, and any decisions made to try to break the resulting deadlock would be arbitrary.
However, note that I did mention that it was unlikely to happen. The likelihood of problems reduces if there are fewer choices, but the trick by some who might want to manipulate a result is to delete/rule out some options early on - in case they could become front runners later on.
Despite that, there are machinations going on with the current process which are being misinterpreted and misreported (presumably deliberately) by various interested parties. I have been glued to the debates over the last week, and the reporting and interpretation after the event is "shaded" (often very considerably) by the press and so called expert reporters afterwards.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
Agree about shambolic. However, I figured that it is possible (though very unlikely) that there could be situations in which no outcome could ever arise with a majority. .
.
Comment
-
Comment