So the UK is finished says Theresa Mayhem

[RIchard Britten]

19 minutes ago, Rog said:

In this instance it doesn't matter.

I'm done.  There is no talking to someone displaying either this level of stupid, trolling or both.

[Rog]

23 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

It is important as not every "immigrant" had the right to vote in the referendum.  To be eligible to vote you had to be a British citizen and as a result there were many people who have come to the UK who were unable to vote.  As an example a French citizen living and working in the UK would not have been allowed to vote unless they had completed the British citizenship process.  To many people living and working in the UK under the EU rules there was simply no need to apply for British citizenship.

Other immigrants living and working on the UK under visa's would also have been unable to vote.

So when you talk about "immigrants" and their influence on the outcome of the referendum you are talking about British citizens...

Immigrants. Immigrants who have entered the UK over the last (say) thirty years and have been able to vote.

Edited January 20, 2020 by Rog

[Rog]

5 minutes ago, RIchard Britten said:

I'm done.  There is no talking to someone displaying either this level of stupid, trolling or both.

No Richard.  You're unable to defend your position try as you might.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Remainers expecting to remain objectors to Brexit, continue to oppose and fight it

Well I'm not opposing or fighting the outcome, that would be pointless. However that doesn't mean I will change horses as you put it or somehow 'go away' . I believe this is a significant mistake but I would be happier than you to be eventually proved wrong.

 

As for majorities, Blair's 1997 179 seat majority surpassed any of Hilda's earlier wins although only achieved by the UK's mad FPTP system.

Sorry for introducing more facts.

Edited January 20, 2020 by ballaughbiker
word order

[manxman1980]

1 hour ago, Rog said:

Immigrants. Immigrants who have entered the UK over the last (say) thirty years and have been able to vote.

It is an important difference.   Without knowing where you are pulling the demographic information from you could be referring to areas that have different make up if you excluded people unable to vote.

[Rog]

1 minute ago, ballaughbiker said:

Well I'm not opposing or fighting the outcome, that would be pointless. However that doesn't mean I will change horses as you put it or somehow 'go away' . I believe this is a significant mistake but I would be happier than you to be proved eventually wrong.

 

As for majorities, Blair's 1997 179 seat majority surpassed any of Hilda's earlier wins although only achieved by the UK's mad FPTP system.

Sorry for introducing more facts.

Yes indeed.  The things that her government had to do were not understood, accepted as being needed, and were spun by Labour that it was a racing certainty the Conservative government would be given the bums rush especially the way that the Community Charge, misrepresented as being a poll tax (which it wasn't) was so unpopular amongst the great unwashed.

Along came Blair and that's when the wheels really came off.

As for the dreadful FPP electoral system, that really does need to be abandoned in favour of radical reform based on proportional representation but turkeys voting for Christmas and all that.  Come to think of it the whole structure of the Westminster Model is flawed.

 

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

Yes, lets run the country to the whims of 17.4 million, a country with a population of 66.8 million.

Can't see that having issues down the line...

 

There will be significant issues unless the 3 bells in some way line up by chance.

I pray it somehow works out in the medium 5 year term. If not, there will be a huge number of much poorer hopping mad traditional labour voters plus the disaffected present under 35s whose rights, freedoms and opportunity have been sacrificed on a hope and a prayer of a better economic result (aka get rid of johnny foreigner)

Of course the rights and freedoms of all of us have been reduced but us old gits lucky enough to be born in a golden era will likely get through it relatively unscathed unlike my kids' generation.

[Rog]

7 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

It is an important difference.   Without knowing where you are pulling the demographic information from you could be referring to areas that have different make up if you excluded people unable to vote.

The voting pattern across the English part of the UK has now been published (it's on the web somewhere, can't be arsed etc.) and if the immigrant population is superimposed on the referendum results there's a very close association.

[Rog]

2 minutes ago, ballaughbiker said:

There will be significant issues unless the 3 bells in some way line up by chance.

I pray it somehow works out in the medium 5 year term. If not, there will be a huge number of much poorer hopping mad traditional labour voters plus the disaffected present under 35s whose rights, freedoms and opportunity have been sacrificed on a hope and a prayer of a better economic result (aka get rid of johnny foreigner)

Of course the rights and freedoms of all of us have been reduced but us old gits lucky enough to be born in a golden era will likely get through it relatively unscathed unlike my kids' generation.

On the positive side it's us old gits who will be passing a free and independent nation to them, not some vassal state to a corrupt and undemocratic mess.

[manxman1980]

19 minutes ago, Rog said:

The voting pattern across the English part of the UK has now been published (it's on the web somewhere, can't be arsed etc.) and if the immigrant population is superimposed on the referendum results there's a very close association.

Be arsed and show me the datasets you are using.

[Rog]

7 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Be arsed and show me the datasets you are using.

electoralcommision.org and then go to Results and turnout at the EU referendum.

[ballaughbiker]

Quote

On the positive side it's us old gits who will be passing a free and independent nation to them, not some vassal state to a corrupt and undemocratic mess

Unless we have to go to trump or worse with the begging bowl. How is that being democratic and independent?  Fingers crossed eh? 

[Rog]

1 minute ago, ballaughbiker said:

Unless we have to go to trump or worse with the begging bowl. How is that being democratic and independent?  Fingers crossed eh? 

The choice to escape from the EU was democratically made and independence is worth any price. Just pause to remember how many millions people paid with life and limb to ensure our independence only for a few arseholes to throw it away. Ted Heath Blair, and Major should be hung as traitors with May and Bercow jailed for full term life.

[manxman1980]

4 hours ago, Rog said:

The majority of those who voted chose to leave.  I say majority because the vote was a very large, and so a very representative sample of the whole population. Your 17.4 mil of 66.8 does NOT compare apples with apples.

In addition the demographics of the voting pattern shows that it was areas of high immigrant concentration that voted remain along with Scotland which had its own agenda and reason to want to remain (I don't know the vote figures for Scotland but that doesn't matter any more than Scotland matters - it's part of the UK and will remain so at least for a generation).

Having checked the data https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum 

I call BS on your analysis.  Some examples;

- Hull, Bradford, Rotherham, Oldham, Rochdale, Dover all have high levels of immigration to the areas yet they all voted leave;

- South Lakeland, Warwick, Gwynedd all voted remain and are not known for high levels of immigration;

Yes, the major cities such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol voted remain but they have also either benefited from trade with the EU or have received funding from the EU whilst.  The northern cities in particular would feel neglected by Westminster.  

As for not having the figures for Scotland... they are included in that data.  38% leave and 62% remain.  Northern Ireland:  44.2% leave and 55.8% remain.

[Rog]

16 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

Having checked the data https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/results-and-turnout-eu-referendum 

I call BS on your analysis.  Some examples;

- Hull, Bradford, Rotherham, Oldham, Rochdale, Dover all have high levels of immigration to the areas yet they all voted leave;

- South Lakeland, Warwick, Gwynedd all voted remain and are not known for high levels of immigration;

Yes, the major cities such as London, Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Bristol voted remain but they have also either benefited from trade with the EU or have received funding from the EU whilst.  The northern cities in particular would feel neglected by Westminster.  

As for not having the figures for Scotland... they are included in that data.  38% leave and 62% remain.  Northern Ireland:  44.2% leave and 55.8% remain.

I ignored Scotland.  As for the rest one has to take a 30,000 feet view.  The  graphics clearly show that the predominantly indigenous English areas voted BREXIT - just as it should be.  

In the case of  Hull, Bradford, Rotherham, Oldham, Rochdale, Dover I suspect that it's the consequences of having a high immigrant population that cause those of us who want BREXIT to turn out in greater numbers to support BREXIT for very obvious reasons.

 

Edited January 20, 2020 by Rog