Brexit and EU general chit chat

When making a post, please ensure it complies with this site's Main Rules at all times.
  • 1 Before I proceed further, what do you define as a majority? Clearly, your definition is the not the legal definition of a majority which is more than half. The country (UK) voted by more than a half to leave the EU and in the bulk of most areas of each English region, the vote was way above 50% voting leave in most cases with only the cities skewing the figures giving a much closer overall figure.

    2 I should be impartial, who says? You?? I'm about as impartial as Dominic Grieve is to leaving the EU. I'm not impartial on this or any other subject.

    1 In any vote or preference I define the winner or the most preferred as the one with the biggest number, whether by just a tiny or huge amount. In the case of a binary choice (yes-no, leave-remain), as you say, "more than half" is the majority.

    2 On impartiality you raise an admirable point which I fully respect.

    I'm not sure any of us can be impartial. Indeed, I hope that remains case; after all, how can you have a stimulating conversation with someone who doesn't have an opinion ...... without losing the will to live! This is why I cringe when people say "in my humble opinion ...."

    However, as a good conversation develops, intellectual honesty has a role to play, in distinguishing between a fact and opinion. Failing to bring facts into a conversation risks the anticlimactic impasse of "we must agree to differ". I know sometimes that as to be the ending but surely a preferred outcome is some exchange of ideas, enlightenment or modification of a previous dogma.

    What I hate about judges is the way they employ fine legal points to camouflage their bias, seeking to rationalise their decision. As with some judges, so with some of us lesser mortals, I think it is deceitful and intellectually dishonest to promote a genuine opinion by citing facts which you have faked, distorted, exaggerated or have selected only those facts which support your opinion.

    For example, it is the adjectives you use to preface a noun that can turn partiality or favouritism into deceit. When you refer to a quantitative phenomenon like "majority", "skewness", "bulk", "most", "closer" but withhold the figures and instead embroider the description with words like "way above", "massively", "clearcut", "almost exclusively", "overwhelmingly", you are about as reliable a commentator of factual information as Murray Walker was on Formula One motor racing. But with Murray, his excessive enthusiasm just made him seem a buffoon where, in your case, it makes you as intellectually honest as a Scottish high court judge deciding on the Boris and the EU, or a rabid Brexiteer, or a snake oil salesman or an MP like Dominic Grieve (and Parliament has become infested with such MP's). Only an ignoramus or deceiver or someone who talks before he thinks would describe 52% as a clear or decisive majority.

    There was a time in market research when clients has enough intellectual honesty to criticise a researcher's report whose conclusions and recommendation were at variance with the data (ie facts). Such a client would feel that when making business decisions they couldn't trust that researcher. Sadly, today's clients who use research data of people have become rather like yourself - who just want data that confirms their opinions or prejudices (in much the same way as a drunk uses a lamp post, for support rather than illumination).

    In conclusion then, do carry on enjoying your partiality and I'll carry on enjoying exposing it as blind unbridled partisanship or, more simply, bullshit!


  • 1 In any vote or preference I define the winner or the most preferred as the one with the biggest number, whether by just a tiny or huge amount. In the case of a binary choice (yes-no, leave-remain), as you say, "more than half" is the majority.

    I'm still none the wiser. I'll try one last time, what is your definition of "more than half." 50.1%? 51%? 55%? 58%? 60%? 70%?

    I cannot make an argument about why I think there is a clear English majority until I know what you consider a majority to be. If its 70%, I've no case to make because most of the results were not 70% or over to vote leave.


    Only an ignoramus or deceiver or someone who talks before he thinks would describe 52% as a clear or decisive majority.

    Then define what you consider a majority to be. A figure, not a page of waffle.

  • I'm still none the wiser. I'll try one last time, what is your definition of "more than half." 50.1%? 51%? 55%? 58%? 60%? 70%?

    I cannot make an argument about why I think there is a clear English majority until I know what you consider a majority to be. If its 70%, I've no case to make because most of the results were not 70% or over to vote leave.


    Then define what you consider a majority to be. A figure, not a page of waffle.

    It's your definition of a majority: "more than half". Can't you even understand your own definition?! It means more than 50.0%. It means 50% + 1. I said it in my point 1. Can't you even read that far? Jesus! In other words, you are content to have a "majority" (50% +1 ) in favour of leaving, where that 1 person could be a half-blind retard ticking whatever box impacts on his addled brain. There are other civilised countries, with governments and citizens (who can absorb a whole page of words without describing it as "waffle", which is usually to conceal an admission of having reading or comprehension difficulties) and these civilised countries (eg Switzerland) would hold a referendum on an important issue like Brexit and only abandon the status quo (look it up) if at least 60% voted to do so. But you don't seem willing to get to mental grips with that alternative. For you that half blind retard is enough to change everyone's life. And you think it's democracy. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so f-ing tragic.

  • I'll stick my neck out here (and accept the abuse that is bound to follow), but the 60% you claim is necessary should only apply to the status quo (in my humble opinion - and yes, I know that will annoy the hell out of casablanca!).

    The status quo usually has a 10-20% inbuilt advantage, but apart from that .... you can't change the rules after the event, so the majority wins, even if it is just one mentally retarded person that swings the vote. I'm sure they will have been far more mental retards on both sides of the vote!

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • 1 Have no fear! Horizon is more robust, swings with the punches and, besides, deserves it more!

    2 The 60% action criterion applies when 60% vote is to Leave, which means abandoning the status quo of Remaining. It's a safeguard against citizens making an ill-considered leap into the unknown or unfamiliar or unpredictable. The way you have phrased your point I can't tell whether you are recommending the very opposite, of abandoning the status quo of Remain if the vote to Leave is 41% or higher. Surely not.

    3 You don't have humble opinions, so you can't rib me on that one!

    4 The 10-20% inbuilt advantage of the status quo is a fair head start but not an unfair advantage. I say that because it reflects people's sense of caution and need for stability and predictability in a tumultuous world. If such people can be persuaded with facts, common sense and a clear vision that the status quo (Remain) has become an intolerable or highly unsatisfying state of affairs that is handicapping our potential or making life unnecessary miserable, frustrating or even potentially calamitous (like appeasing Hitler), then an action criterion of 60% should be quite attainable. If people can't be persuaded of those reasons to Leave then either they are cautious in nature or the argument for a more enterprising self-determining or courageous approach are unconvincing or the government lacks the necessary qualities to lead us into that new but unknown promised land.

    5 It's precisely because you can't change the rules that one needs to define the action criterion as 60% plus. Look at this way: 60% is a clear majority. Horizon thinks 52% is a clear majority. But I think her and many others do so because they have a deep seated need to justify Leaving on the grounds that it is supported by a clear majority. The problem here is that the truth of the matter is only a charlatan or fool or delusionist would judge 52% to be a clear majority.

    6 Why on earth would you find that a satisfactory state of affairs? Surely you understand the point I'm making. When someone is described as literal minded you do realise, don't you, that it is not a compliment?

    7 It doesn't matter if this whole country is chocobloc full of mental retards. Because then it won't make much difference whether we Remain or Leave. Either way the EU would be the least of our problems! Actually, I fear that might be a fair description of the problem this country faces, whether we leave or remain.

  • Harold Wilson always claimed that one was a majority

    It is in the Commons, and on one occasion, the deciding vote came from a convicted felon who had broken her curfew in order to vote!

    Do double standards apply?

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • It's your definition of a majority: "more than half". Can't you even understand your own definition?! It means more than 50.0%. It means 50% + 1. I said it in my point 1. Can't you even read that far? Jesus! In other words, you are content to have a "majority" (50% +1 ) in favour of leaving, where that 1 person could be a half-blind retard ticking whatever box impacts on his addled brain. There are other civilised countries, with governments and citizens (who can absorb a whole page of words without describing it as "waffle", which is usually to conceal an admission of having reading or comprehension difficulties) and these civilised countries (eg Switzerland) would hold a referendum on an important issue like Brexit and only abandon the status quo (look it up) if at least 60% voted to do so. But you don't seem willing to get to mental grips with that alternative. For you that half blind retard is enough to change everyone's life. And you think it's democracy. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so f-ing tragic.

    Well, again you haven't said what your definition of a majority is, but if you had given a figure, I would've then gone through each region, area by area with you. But for fun, lets just go through the areas and if you want to drill down further into the results we can.

    Excluding London, these are the results for the other 8 English voting regions which all voted to leave:

    AREA % VOTING LEAVE
    East Midlands 58.82
    East of England 56.48
    North East England 58.04
    North West England 53.65
    South East England 51.78
    South West England and Gibraltar 52.63
    West Midlands 59.26
    Yorkshire and Humber 57.71

    In these 8 regions there were 294 voting areas. Out of the those 294 areas, only 53 areas voted to remain and that includes Gibraltar within those figures. A clear majority of English areas voted to leave, even by your undefined majority, I'd suggest.

    If you want to drill down into each area's results, we can, as that's what's skewed the overall UK figures. Look at the demographics of the areas that voted remain like Manchester, Leicester etc and it is clear cut that the English voted overwhelmingly to leave the EU by a majority even by your undefined majority.

  • I'll stick my neck out here (and accept the abuse that is bound to follow), but the 60% you claim is necessary should only apply to the status quo (in my humble opinion - and yes, I know that will annoy the hell out of casablanca!).

    He hasn't actually stated what his figure is, just waffling on about Switzerland. Who cares about the Swiss?

    Let him state what his definition of a majority is. I've asked him several times and still haven't got a reply.

    Edit: Ah, I see in his next post he finally says 60%. Something to work with now.

  • 1 You asked me for a definition of a majority and I agreed with your definition, of more than half; or 50%+1. So I don't understand why you keeping asking me. Can you get someone to help you or at least slow you down a bit? Because this is getting weird.

    2 The figures you give me for each of the 8 regions (which excludes London, Scotland and NI) are the same as those on the web link I gave you. So there's no problem with the data itself. It's how you are reading it. It's true that a clear majority of areas voted to leave. But you're counting areas as if they are people. You're supposed to count people. This isn't like a General Election where one totals up the number of conservative versus Labour constituencies. Let me explain (and if you regard this as a paragraph of "waffle", then get back to your library and colour in another of your "books"): In a general election, constituency A gets 80-20 for Tories, constituency B gets 70-30 for Tories, C gets 49-51 for Labour and D gets 45-56 for Labour, E get gets 48-52 for Labour. On that basis, Labour gets 3 MP's into Parliament and the Tories get 2 MP's. Now let's count it by people (we can assume 100 people per constituency as constituencies are designed to be roughly equal in population size): on that basis, across those 5 constituencies, there are 292 votes for Tories and 208 for Labour (ie 58% versus 42%). The referendum was not counting areas, it was counting people. Don't you understand that? Pleeeeeaaase spare me your gibberish about counting areas as if they are people. You may just as well say a clear majority of people in each of 8 blood types voted to leave. No one is denying that the tilt to Leave is consistent. It probably also shows that the vote to leave is stronger in the areas with a high percentage of blue collar workers facing a hard time as the nation drifts into a white collar workforce and/or getting fed up with too many immigrants taking their jobs and/or trying to bring Islamic values into schooling and/or free loading on already strained benefits, including NHS. Yet in spite of all of that, none of those percentages voting to Leave hits 60%, whereas in the South it is between 51-52%. Across all of England it averages 55-56%. So my point remains. It is not a clear majority. Perhaps only to you and other hard Brexiteers to whom figures just get in the way of their delusions or prejudices or simply have an allergy to numbers.

    Ages ago I showed you and other forum members where the biggest variation lay in Leave vs Remain. It wasn't by area. It was by demographics, particularly socio-economic class. But neither you (nor anyone else) wanted to know that. I'm sure you know why there was a studied disinterest!

  • 1 You asked me for a definition of a majority and I agreed with your definition, of more than half; or 50%+1. So I don't understand why you keeping asking me. Can you get someone to help you or at least slow you down a bit? Because this is getting weird.

    I wasn't asking what a legal definition of a majority is, I was asking what your definition of a "proper" majority is for the purposes of this argument, a de facto majority if you will. As you've mentioned 60% more than once including in the second paragraph of your reply, I'll go with that.

    Ages ago I showed you and other forum members where the biggest variation lay in Leave vs Remain. It wasn't by area. It was by demographics, particularly socio-economic class. But neither you (nor anyone else) wanted to know that. I'm sure you know why there was a studied disinterest!

    You make assumptions where there are none. I've said several times on the forum, that my time is very limited. Non-reply does not equal disinterest. Show me where this post is and I'll try and reply. Actually, don't worry, I'll try and find it myself.

    2 The figures you give me for each of the 8 regions (which excludes London, Scotland and NI) are the same as those on the web link I gave you. So there's no problem with the data itself. It's how you are reading it. It's true that a clear majority of areas voted to leave. But you're counting areas as if they are people. You're supposed to count people. This isn't like a General Election where one totals up the number of conservative versus Labour constituencies. Let me explain (and if you regard this as a paragraph of "waffle", then get back to your library and colour in another of your "books"): In a general election, constituency A gets 80-20 for Tories, constituency B gets 70-30 for Tories, C gets 49-51 for Labour and D gets 45-56 for Labour, E get gets 48-52 for Labour. On that basis, Labour gets 3 MP's into Parliament and the Tories get 2 MP's. Now let's count it by people (we can assume 100 people per constituency as constituencies are designed to be roughly equal in population size): on that basis, across those 5 constituencies, there are 292 votes for Tories and 208 for Labour (ie 58% versus 42%). The referendum was not counting areas, it was counting people. Don't you understand that? Pleeeeeaaase spare me your gibberish about counting areas as if they are people. You may just as well say a clear majority of people in each of 8 blood types voted to leave. No one is denying that the tilt to Leave is consistent. It probably also shows that the vote to leave is stronger in the areas with a high percentage of blue collar workers facing a hard time as the nation drifts into a white collar workforce and/or getting fed up with too many immigrants taking their jobs and/or trying to bring Islamic values into schooling and/or free loading on already strained benefits, including NHS. Yet in spite of all of that, none of those percentages voting to Leave hits 60%, whereas in the South it is between 51-52%. Across all of England it averages 55-56%. So my point remains. It is not a clear majority. Perhaps only to you and other hard Brexiteers to whom figures just get in the way of their delusions or prejudices or simply have an allergy to numbers.

    Of course you reject analysis of the areas because you know what the data shows, but I'll try and find your earlier post you mentioned, presumably from two years ago and come back to this once I have your demographic data that you posted.

    Behind the areas are people and what people is key and as I've said, I don't dispute the figures, I dispute the argument being out forward by the media, by remainers etc that the country (England) is divided and we did not vote by a majority, even a de facto majority, because we did.

  • Two Remain campaign groups have been fined. I tried to find it on the BBC news, but if it's there it is well hidden, so I've posted the link from the Express.

    Brexit LIVE: Remain campaign groups FINED by Electoral Commission - 'Failed legal duty!'

    Maybe the Electoral Commission are trying to restore a little bit of credibility, but they haven't fully achieved it, as apparently the full list of complaints was not investigated, only a few selected complaints.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • To be honest, all of this Brexit deal is not making sense to me. I think that they are blowing the issue out of proportion.

  • Two Remain campaign groups have been fined. I tried to find it on the BBC news, but if it's there it is well hidden, so I've posted the link from the Express.

    Brexit LIVE: Remain campaign groups FINED by Electoral Commission - 'Failed legal duty!'

    Maybe the Electoral Commission are trying to restore a little bit of credibility, but they haven't fully achieved it, as apparently the full list of complaints was not investigated, only a few selected complaints.

    The Express, total supporters of anything connected to Brexit

  • 1 I wasn't asking what a legal definition of a majority is. As you've mentioned 60% more than once including in the second paragraph of your reply, I'll go with that.

    2 You make assumptions where there are none ..... time is very limited .......non-reply does not equal disinterest .... show me the post ..... don't worry ...... I'll try and find it myself.

    3 You reject analysis of the areas because you know what the data shows ..... but I'll try and find your earlier post you mentioned, presumably from two years ago and come back to this once I have your demographic data that you posted.

    4 Behind the areas are people and what people is key and as I've said, I don't dispute the figures, I dispute the argument being out forward by the media, by remainers etc that the country (England) is divided and we did not vote by a majority, even a de facto majority, because we did.

    You know, we're really on the same waveband on all of this, I'm just trying to avoid deliverable or accidental/careless misrepresentation of facts

    1 Sorry, I misunderstood - you thought I was questioning your definition of a majority but all I was questioning was you exaggerating its size. And I wasn't ever touting 60% as the definition of a majority but rather the action/implementation criterion for this particular referendum.

    2 Sorry, didn't realise I was pressuring or haranguing you when you were under the clock. Indeed, I wonder how you do find enough time! The demographic data is interesting. The most striking difference between the profile of Leave vs Remain was that Leavers were proportionately more manual than white collar, more C2DE than ABC1 and that is probably why their views tended be more belligerent and more easily characterised as Little Britishers or jingoistic or racist. Much of it is the usual snobbism that still divides our country.

    3 I know what drilling down to smaller areas will show. More variability. I don't reject that. Such variation is normal. The geodemographics industry has been built on those small area variations. But in the end you have to count the people. You can't keep making exceptions. If you want to remove the exceptions to your viewpoint, you're either fooling yourself or trying to fool others. It's like saying I would have won this grand Prix race if I had a faster engine or better tyres. It is what it is. Besides, the smaller the area (town, constituency, village ...) the more likely it will show a high deviation from the average (a factory closure, a worried farming community, concentration of Muslims, boarded up shops etc ) - but here's the rub: the smaller the area the less its effect on the overall total.

    4 You say, "behind the areas are people". Right! So don't count the area result, count the people result. You say "what people is key". Right! So what do you propose? Exclude those types of people or small areas that undermine a Leave result? Obviously not. Besides, Remainers could play that same game in reverse. But then again, that's your argument for excluding London. But you are not talking of excluding them and their result, are you? Because you're a fair person. You just want to say that without those all those immigrants in London the overall referendum result would have been a bigger majority. That's true. But so what? It is what it is. I don't like what it is and nor do you. All I'm arguing is that the referendum result showed a near equal division between Leave and Remain rather than a clear majority in favour of Leaving and it behoves us not to lie about that. I don't care whether call it a majority or a de facto majority, 52%-48% it's still a near equal dividedness, and so is 55%-45% if one excludes London. Even if one also excludes those crazy-mixed-up Scots it's still only 55%. It's regrettable that the dividedness has come from citizens being so ill-informed or lied to by the Government and people of influence and the media and it is disgracefully regrettable that subsequent Parliamentary debate couldn't raise the bar. But I guess that's what happens if the electorate select MP's who think like the electorate!

  • The Express, total supporters of anything connected to Brexit

    Balanced out by the Guardian, total opponents of anything connected to Brexit.

    Mark Twain — 'Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.'

  • It appears Labour are now determined to punish their supporters for not towing the party line. How dare their traditional voters in the North East defy them and vote for Brexit. Well thats easilty dealt with, Corbyn wants to secure jobs, so Labour will secure them, only in Spain not the North East. The Labour concils responsible for awarding the new metro train contracts have gone to Spain not Darlington, which is just 50miles down the road, thus betraying their principles towards the working men they are supposed to represent. Here's hoping the newly unemployed of Darlington and those of the surrounding area who would depend on these contracts will continue to show their loyalty to Labour because their father did and his father before him did, or just for the hell of it, and here's a novel idea, vote for someone else because Labour just screwed them

  • It appears Labour are now determined to punish their supporters for not towing the party line. How dare their traditional voters in the North East defy them and vote for Brexit. Well thats easilty dealt with, Corbyn wants to secure jobs, so Labour will secure them, only in Spain not the North East. The Labour concils responsible for awarding the new metro train contracts have gone to Spain not Darlington, which is just 50miles down the road, thus betraying their principles towards the working men they are supposed to represent. Here's hoping the newly unemployed of Darlington and those of the surrounding area who would depend on these contracts will continue to show their loyalty to Labour because their father did and his father before him did, or just for the hell of it, and here's a novel idea, vote for someone else because Labour just screwed them

    And I still don't think we're any the wiser on what Labour wants to do in regards to Brexit, whether they want a 2nd referendum or not.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!