Lib Dems pledge British return to EU in the next general election. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50596208]its okay to ignore the wishes of the majority because clearly the majority is illiterate because they don't agree with me sorry, thats not how democracy works. you lost, get over it[/QUOTE] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524520&p=50596149&viewfull=1#post50596149]Please read my post here to understand why you're just plain wrong.[/url]

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596169]Tyranny? It's a country leaving the EU not legal slavery of Scottish people[/QUOTE] Tyranny of the majority is an established term for when the actions of the majority adversely affects a minority. In this case since the difference is only 2% (and is probably a lot less, or the opposite due to apathetic voters) its not even a "mini-majority" so much as its a "possibly mini-majority".

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596210]I'm sure there will be economic turmoil but people cast into homelessness seems like a huge stretch, do you have evidence to back your claim?[/QUOTE] People could potentially lose homes when interest rates sore, so yes it's very possible.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596210]I'm sure there will be economic turmoil but people cast into homelessness seems like a huge stretch, do you have evidence to back your claim?[/QUOTE] If you can't see how an economic recession would increase homelessness then I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50596215]People could potentially lose homes when interest rates sore, so yes it's very possible.[/QUOTE] Soar* and could you provide a source or evidence like I asked because I am not entirely doubting you, I just want to see proof.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596226]Soar* and could you provide a source or evidence like I asked because I am not entirely doubting you, I just want to see proof.[/QUOTE] You can't provide proof of something that hasn't quite happened yet. But if you look at history and see other countries that suddenly underwent economic recession or turmoil then its pretty obvious whats about to happen. Look at the US during its recession not all too long ago.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596226]Soar* and could you provide a source or evidence like I asked because I am not entirely doubting you, I just want to see proof.[/QUOTE] Was there really any need for a jab over a bloody typo? And look at the last recessions and see what happened then.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50596211][URL="https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1524520&p=50596149&viewfull=1#post50596149"]Please read my post here to understand why you're just plain wrong.[/URL][/QUOTE] he's right tho.... If trump wins by 2% would you say we need a do over? No because that would be dumb and it allows the "people that lost" the opportunity at a second attempt, whereas the people that wanted the change in the first place then have to try and make a change a second time. It undermines voting entirely lol. How many do overs are acceptable to you?

[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;50596247]he's right tho.... If trump wins by 2% would you say we need a do over? No because that would be dumb and it allows the "people that lost" the opportunity berate and do everything in their power to sway the votes. Ideally that should have happened BEFORE the voting process, not after the fact. It undermines voting entirely lol. How many do overs are acceptable to you?[/QUOTE] Considering presidential elections happen ever 4 years it's not comparable. It's not a one off thing like the EU referendum is. This is more comparable to a constitutional change than anything else.

The US housing bubble bursting was the result of toxic debt from shit lending standards, risky mortgages, too big to fail, etc. not them separating from another entity.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50596252]Considering presidential elections happen ever 4 years it's not comparable. It's not a one off thing like the EU referendum is. This is more comparable to a constitutional change than anything else.[/QUOTE] Which I may add, a constitutional change needs far more a majority than 52%

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50596252]Considering presidential elections happen ever 4 years it's not comparable. It's not a one off thing like the EU referendum is. This is more comparable to a constitutional change than anything else.[/QUOTE] So there has to be a vote and then a vote for "are u sure"?

[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;50596247]he's right tho.... If trump wins by 2% would you say we need a do over? No because that would be dumb and it allows the "people that lost" the opportunity at a second attempt, whereas the people that wanted the change in the first place then have to try and make a change a second time. It undermines voting entirely lol. How many do overs are acceptable to you?[/QUOTE] A popular vote is supposed to represent the majority of a country. 2% is not enough to call a victory because that 2% can be due to people who were unable to vote, miscounts, and other miscellaneous possibilities. If it was a 20% margin then you can't just chalk that 20% up to those things so its clearly representative of the majority. Furthermore if it truly was a 50/50 split then its still throwing 50% of the population under the bus. Its best for them to keep the status quo with such a low margin rather then accepting such a small and possibly non-existent majority.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;50596259]Which I may add, a constitutional change needs far more a majority than 52%[/QUOTE] What about gay marriage in the states? Only won by 1 vote, idk why everyone wants to change democracy when they're on the losing side.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596264]What about gay marriage in the states? Only won by 1 vote, idk why everyone wants to change democracy when they're on the losing side.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about?

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596264]What about gay marriage in the states? Only won by 1 vote, idk why everyone wants to change democracy when they're on the losing side.[/QUOTE] Gay marriage wasn't passed by a referendum involving the entire population though. Thats not a fair comparison.

[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;50596264]What about gay marriage in the states? Only won by 1 vote, idk why everyone wants to change democracy when they're on the losing side.[/QUOTE] Yeah I dunno why do people want to change democracy when a tyrannical majority gets to make life ruining choices for almost 50% of the population? I just can't figure it man.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;50596276]Gay marriage wasn't passed by a referendum involving the entire population though. Thats not a fair comparison.[/QUOTE] Not only that, but a referendum voting on civil rights is literally the definition of tyranny of the majority and the whole point of a constitutional republic to deal with.

[QUOTE=carcarcargo;50596277]Yeah I dunno why do people want to change democracy when a tyrannical majority gets to make life ruining choices for almost 50% of the population? I just can't figure it man.[/QUOTE] tyrannical majority? Are you referring to old people that voted?

Also its pretty obvious that 1. Businesses lose money because of how fucked the economy is getting 2. Businesses either leave the UK or start laying off workers 3. Workers who get laid off can no longer afford to pay for their current residence 4. Workers are now homeless. This is not a hard concept to grasp.

[QUOTE=Monkah;50595909]Oh give it a rest already. The people have spoken, whether you agree or disagree with what they voted for.[/QUOTE] And yet every election the youth vote will only get stronger

[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;50596292]tyrannical majority? Are you referring to old people that voted?[/QUOTE] A tyrannical majority basically means the majority dictates whats going on in a country, to the expense of a minority. In this case the majority may or may not actually exist and if it does its only 2% larger then the minority.

[QUOTE=MisterLANCE;50596292]tyrannical majority? Are you referring to old people that voted?[/QUOTE] Age is irrelevant.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;50596293]Also its pretty obvious that 1. Businesses lose money because of how fucked the economy is getting 2. Businesses either leave the UK or start laying off workers 3. Workers who get laid off can no longer afford to pay for their current residence 4. Workers are now homeless. This is not a hard concept to grasp.[/QUOTE] On the bright side, a vacation to england will cost considerably less.

[QUOTE=Pops;50596306]On the bright side, a vacation to england will cost considerably less.[/QUOTE] Who would want to vacation in a place full of vagrants and homeless :v:

[QUOTE=Pops;50596306]On the bright side, a vacation to england will cost considerably less.[/QUOTE] On the downside the british economy going down the shitter adversely affects pretty much every nation on Earth.

[QUOTE=Kyle902;50596298]A tyrannical majority basically means the majority dictates whats going on in a country, to the expense of a minority. In this case the majority may or may not actually exist and if it does its only 2% larger then the minority.[/QUOTE] Thanks I missed your earlier explanation on page 1. That being said, a lot of the reasons I see people wanting a re-vote is because of a. Some people couldn't make it. b. People didn't care. c. people voted leave as a joke. A is actually a problem. Ideally 100% of people should vote. I don't see how to fix this issue, but I can't see 100% of people voting in a re-vote. Even if the voter turnout was 90% in the re-vote you and the decision was reversed and won by say 6% or so, you could argue that the other 10% that couldn't vote would have voted leave. Then you'd be calling for [i]another[/i] revote. On top of that, some people that may have voted in the first referendum may not be able to vote in the second effectively nullifying their original vote regardless of whom it was for. B is somewhat of a problem, and I would guess a lack of understanding what's going on that's making people not care. However this isn't [i]exactly[/i] an issue because they already demonstrated that they don't care by not voting, and thus want to leave the decision up to someone who does care. C is.. Well stupid people have voting rights too.

Again I must point out that even if the number is really around 52% voted leave you're still throwing about half of your population under the bus. With such low margins its really best to keep the status quo.

I keep getting this creeping feeling that the Remainer's are going to [I]EU[/I]thanize all the older voters the way they're talking. :clown:

[QUOTE=Bazsil;50596208]its okay to ignore the wishes of the majority because clearly the majority is illiterate because they don't agree with me sorry, thats not how democracy works. you lost, get over it[/QUOTE] Not the majority, but certainly a lot of them are nitwits. An ideal referendum would be one that require a supermajority like in the Montenegrin referendum in 2006 which was imposed by the EU themselves! Anyway I guess that's the price of living in a demuhcracy.