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.
-
-
Points very well taken TS..(look at Macron today...unhelpful...)....part of the problem is that the loudest Brexit voices tend to be the most divisive, most crudely nationalistic, EU-baiting-and-blaming, sometimes explicitly xenophobic or racist. But the EU-27 are now showing their impatience with the UK..out of the much tory-vaunted self-interest.... why wouldn't they?Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
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
-
'Petitions is down for maintenance' ...… but I believe it's over 1 million.Originally posted by Bryn View PostAt the risk of it getting moderated off:
The way things are going, it should hit 1 million by 3 o'clock today.Comment
-
-
Yes and as reported on BBC24, the dreadful Andrea Leadsom (choosing my words very carefully of course...) said (I paraphrase, but closely) "well, when it gets to 17.4 million we might listen..." etc....Originally posted by Bryn View Post
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
-
Now topped 1.5 million.Comment
-
....if the 3rd Meaningful Vote is not to be attempted on Monday as it surely should be....we will know what way this is to be played....bong chingComment
-
-
Originally posted by teamsaint 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. 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
-
Maybe - but that is still trumped by the millions who voted at the start of this sorry saga.Originally posted by Bryn View PostComment
-
... and always useful to remember our old friend the Condorcet Paradox -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
-
And by those who were entitled to vote but did not, though not by such a margin.Originally posted by Dave2002 View PostComment
-
Hmm. It now looks like 2 million is possible by midnight tonight.Comment
Comment