The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:
	In simple terms - you "demand another vote". Another vote is possible but you'd have to become an MP to get the ball rolling. Or was it just another "whataboutism"?

It was a füking joke.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	When there were three candidates

Indeed so MPs who voted for other candidates in the 2016 leadership election have now switched to supporting May.

[marton]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	It was a füking joke.

	Quote:
	It is a joke Jim but not a joke as we know it

Source; Spock

	Quote:	marton
	Indeed so MPs who voted for other candidates in the 2016 leadership election have now switched to supporting May.

One MP.

[bigblue2]

I wouldn't read too much into that, its just mp's covering their own arses, when they worked out their little schemes didn't have enough support and they where going to lose, they switched side. The tory's really are a bunch of self serving twats

	Quote:	bigblue2
	I wouldn't read too much into that, its just mp's covering their own arses, when they worked out their little schemes didn't have enough support and they where going to lose, they switched side. The tory's really are a bunch of self serving twats

It's interesting to scan through this morning's tabloid offerings which once were championing Brexiteers such as Bojo, JRM, Dervid Dervis, et al, and are now vaguely mocking them and alluding to their treachery.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	amogles
	Thanks for confirming. So iit would seem that ndeed, the threat of a small and essentially symbolic fine can indeed motivate many people to vote.

Unless there's no causal relation.

I seem to remember the same fine in Kanton Thurgau from my childhood days, but if that's factual it probably was abolished before I got to vote late in 1984. And I'd venture Thurgau was far from the only one.

That said, the first questions to answer for someone who thinks such a fine would be conducive is why it was abolished back then and what its effect was in the past, if any, and what amount it would take today to get a comparable effect.

ETA
Looks like I was mostly right, see this article.

ETA2
I don't trust the study mentionied in the article. First because the data may simply be too old to compare, they're a century old. And second because the data for federal votes from 1958-1972 where a federal Volksinitiative was to be voted on paint a clearly different picture, one that's roughly the same as today. In those years the mandatory vote was still effective for many Cantons, as you can see by the article's table.

Dates are in dd.mm.yyyy format.

Turnout on 08.12.1974 was 55.6%
Turnout on 20.10.1974 was 70.3% (**)
Turnout on 03.12.1972 was 52.9%
Turnout on 24.09.1972 was 33.3%
Turnout on 05.03.1972 was 35.7%
Turnout on 27.09.1970 was 43.8%
Turnout on 07.06.1970 was 74.7% (*)
Turnout on 02.07.1967 was 37.9%
Turnout on 26.05.1963 was 48.8%
Turnout on 01.04.1962 was 55.6%
Turnout on 22.10.1961 was 40.0%
Turnout on 26.10.1958 was 61.8%
Turnout on 26.01.1958 was 51.8%


(*) Schwarzenbach-Initiative, the first Volksinitiative aiming to limit the influx of foreigners into the country.
(**) Vote on the Überfremdungsinitiative, the second Volksinitiative aiming to limit the influx of foreigners into the country.

Amazing that ERG are bleating that 63% is far too small a majority- whilst they said all along 52% was massive, clear and decisive. Silly stupid goal posts games.

	Quote:
	Amazing that ERG are bleating that 63% is far too small a majority- whilst they said all along 52% was massive, clear and decisive. Silly stupid goal posts games.

Are you being serious?

Good read here:

Brexit is a fight for the very sovereignty of our nation

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Good read here: Brexit is a fight for the very sovereignty of our nation

"The Spectator". LOL.

	Quote:
	"The Spectator". LOL.

What's wrong with The Spectator? How about you read the article and say what you find wrong with it?

You really are jesting, right:

'However, Leave triumphed'

despite the massive lies and fraud, the suppression of any expert advice as 'project fear' - leave could only scrape 52% ...

He is so right on this one though, 100%:

'The lion’s share of the blame for that lies with Parliament’s decision to offer the public a referendum without thinking through the consequences.' - that was reckless to the point of being criminal- and totally went against Parliamentary Democracy- Sovereignty.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	What's wrong with The Spectator? How about you read the article and say what you find wrong with it?

I did read it. Shrieky and emotive. Breathtakingly irrelevant and childish in parts.

Turns out the UK public balks at the reality of sovereignty. Look what happened when the tabloids found out that Brexit would have to get the consent of parliament. "Enemies of the people" was the headline. Sovereignty, eh? Yeah, great.

As for ****dy Farage- when he goes on about what people want- remember what he said all along his campaign:

https://youtu.be/fNCwcTu9U6U

	Quote:
	I did read it. Shrieky and emotive. Breathtakingly irrelevant and childish in parts.

Which parts? Point out where it was shrieky and emotive and childish.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Which parts? Point out where it was shrieky and emotive and childish.

Why did you pick that bit of my comment rather than the bit about the reality of sovereignty?

	Quote:
	Why did you pick that bit of my comment rather than the bit about the reality of sovereignty?

Because it's simply not true. Whilst you can debate whether it was irrelevant (it isn't) or the content, you cannot say it was shrieky, emotive and childish.

[Troublawesome]

The best thing I ever did on this forum was to ignore the posts from Loz and stlemans. Mostly garbage, provocative and borderline trollish. Found there's 0 value to keep reading them and slightly annoying, so now they are filtered.


I suggest you do the same rather than try to make sense of what Loz is spouting these days.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Because it's simply not true. Whilst you can debate whether it was irrelevant (it isn't) or the content, you cannot say it was shrieky, emotive and childish.

Why not? It's an opinion I formed after reading it. The "journalism" isn't too fab, either, while we're at it.

He's waving "sovereignty" around without a trace of irony. Toe-curling.