• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Do you indulge in digital self harm?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #11
    Originally posted by MarillionFan View Post
    Nah, I just send the messages to others.
    I just post here, fatty!
    Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

    Comment


      #12
      Originally posted by rogerfederer View Post
      It was an advisory referendum. Any party in power, or who came to power, would be within their rights to view it as too close to call.

      If you believe in democracy you would question the advisory nature of it. Why was it not a binding referendum? The real question to ask is why was this detail intentionally made. It is very strange.

      If joining the EU on limited terms is an advisory referendum in future, this would be just that - purely advisory. The weird thing about this whole scenario is that the margin was so close, it was advisory, and now we are heading towards an unknown target.

      Referenda should always be binding to avoid this situation. At the core of democracy is such a choice. If someone advised me 52% of people voted one way and 48% another way in an advisory referendum, I would suggest the people were almost split down the middle in opinions. If it was a binding referendum, then tough, it should progress regardless.

      You are claiming you wish for democracy to be upheld, but if you think carefully it is actually being subverted by the choice of a particular government in power choosing to head down a path based on a very narrowly contested advisory referendum. Democracy, in this case, should be regardless of the government in power. This is why binding referenda exist.
      All this carp about advisory this and advisory that overlooks one essential point:

      Before the results were known, Cameron & co made it abundantly clear they would respect the result. So in practice it was binding!
      Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

      Comment


        #13
        Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
        All this carp about advisory this and advisory that overlooks one essential point:

        Before the results were known, Cameron & co made it abundantly clear they would respect the result. So in practice it was binding!
        I agree. There's too much sophistry around this. There's a clear democratic mandate around leaving the EU. It's a ******* stupid idea, but there you go.

        Unfortunately there's no mandate around the post exit settlement. EEA membership probably reflects where most people sit given the narrowness of the result but it wasn't on the ballot paper. This presents a strong case for a second referendum, not on whether or not to leave, but on the post-leave settlement.

        Comment


          #14
          Originally posted by Old Greg View Post
          I agree. There's too much sophistry around this. There's a clear democratic mandate around leaving the EU. It's a ******* stupid idea, but there you go.

          Unfortunately there's no mandate around the post exit settlement. EEA membership probably reflects where most people sit given the narrowness of the result but it wasn't on the ballot paper. This presents a strong case for a second referendum, not on whether or not to leave, but on the post-leave settlement.
          You're on thin ice, mentioning this sort of thing in General. People have been executed for less. Possibly....
          His heart is in the right place - shame we can't say the same about his brain...

          Comment


            #15
            I've never even heard of this, what a weird idea. Although I wager a lot of people here do it via sockies


            --

            Originally posted by Zigenare View Post
            Whereas the other 48% do nothing but whinge about a democratic process that they obviously don't understand - because it doesn't suit!
            A process in which (at least) one side has been punished for acting dishonestly/illegally, and which - to aid your understanding - was not something that had to be followed.

            Why are we still going on about it, it's happening get on with it.
            Originally posted by MaryPoppins
            I'd still not breastfeed a nazi
            Originally posted by vetran
            Urine is quite nourishing

            Comment


              #16
              Originally posted by d000hg View Post
              I've never even heard of this, what a weird idea. Although I wager a lot of people here do it via sockies
              Some of us just outsource it to our bitches.

              Comment

              Working...
              X