Man threatens to punch cyclist, 14, who was riding on pavement due to puncture making it too dangerous to stay on road

SPENGLE Carbon wrote:

can we at least applaud the fact that the 14 year old (and his siblings?) is riding 6 miles to and from schoole very day!

That's the behaviour we should be talking about!

You're right, of course.  I think this discussion may have drifted a tiny bit off topic...

Mungecrundle wrote:

<snip>

we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

FrankH wrote:

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

It was one Nigel Paul Farage who said, before the referendum result that a close result - he actually said 52/48! - would be too close to be meaningful and that he would take it to court if Leave lost by those sorts of numbers.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Quote:

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

FrankH wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

<snip>

we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

No. The 2016 referendum was won by rolling multiple abstract Brexits into one, lying about the benefits, dismissing all of the problems as "Project Fear" and abusive levels of targeted advertisement/manipulation. That result is now being used by politicians to gaslight and as a "mandate" for whatever particular form of Brexit they are pushing at the moment. The proposed referendum is a confirmatory referendum based on an actual negotiated deal, rather than lies and mutually exclusive options.

I am sick and tired of the spin on this topic.

FrankH wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

<snip>

we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy.

All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

Mungecrundle wrote:

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy.

All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election?

If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government?

Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority.

It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster.

Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we're not sure it will be an improvement?

Rich_cb wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy.

All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election?

If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government?

Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority.

It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster.

Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we're not sure it will be an improvement?

The obvious response is we should have another election after 4 years or so. And require him to maintain the support of a majority of MPs rather than just getting to do everything he wants without needing any more debate.

Elections are not the same thing as referendums, certainly not legally.

I think this country is a bit screwed, though. There's no way out of this that won't enrage a lot of the population. In holding the referendum Cameron pulled at a loose strand that appears to be unravelling the entire country. A majority of both leavers and remainers apparently are prepared to accept violence against MPs as a price of getting the thing over with, and both are prepared to sacrifice the Union to get what they want.

The odds of Scotland going its own way have to be quite good now. And clearly a united Ireland (which I think is a good thing) is more likely than ever before.

Stick a fork in the UK, it's done. Cameron and the Conservative and Unionist party may have wrecked it.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The obvious response is we should have another election after 4 years or so. And require him to maintain the support of a majority of MPs rather than just getting to do everything he wants without needing any more debate.

Elections are not the same thing as referendums, certainly not legally.

I think this country is a bit screwed, though. There's no way out of this that won't enrage a lot of the population. In holding the referendum Cameron pulled at a loose strand that appears to be unravelling the entire country. A majority of both leavers and remainers apparently are prepared to accept violence against MPs as a price of getting the thing over with, and both are prepared to sacrifice the Union to get what they want.

The odds of Scotland going its own way have to be quite good now. And clearly a united Ireland (which I think is a good thing) is more likely than ever before.

Stick a fork in the UK, it's done. Cameron and the Conservative and Unionist party may have wrecked it.

You've missed the point there. Munge is stating that before you change the status quo you must show what you're proposing will be better than the status quo.

We don't apply that criterion to General Elections so why should it be applied to referendums?

The EU referendum and a general election are actually pretty similar, you vote for a direction of travel and the politicians then thrash out the details.

For example;
Corbyn is proposing large scale nationalisation if Labour are elected, the details of exactly how this huge change will be implemented are vague but people will still be allowed to vote for it and the details worked out later.

Rich_cb wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

The obvious response is we should have another election after 4 years or so. And require him to maintain the support of a majority of MPs rather than just getting to do everything he wants without needing any more debate.

Elections are not the same thing as referendums, certainly not legally.

I think this country is a bit screwed, though. There's no way out of this that won't enrage a lot of the population. In holding the referendum Cameron pulled at a loose strand that appears to be unravelling the entire country. A majority of both leavers and remainers apparently are prepared to accept violence against MPs as a price of getting the thing over with, and both are prepared to sacrifice the Union to get what they want.

The odds of Scotland going its own way have to be quite good now. And clearly a united Ireland (which I think is a good thing) is more likely than ever before.

Stick a fork in the UK, it's done. Cameron and the Conservative and Unionist party may have wrecked it.

You've missed the point there. Munge is stating that before you change the status quo you must show what you're proposing will be better than the status quo.

We don't apply that criterion to General Elections so why should it be applied to referendums?

The EU referendum and a general election are actually pretty similar, you vote for a direction of travel and the politicians then thrash out the details.

For example;
Corbyn is proposing large scale nationalisation if Labour are elected, the details of exactly how this huge change will be implemented are vague but people will still be allowed to vote for it and the details worked out later.

Not the same at all. In order to actually pass such nationalisations he would need to maintain the support of a majority of MPs. The issue would not be settled the day after the election. There would be huge fights over it, both political and probably legal.

And if he only scraped a bare majority (like 52-48) there would be a lot of horse-trading and difficult votes to get things done. Plus, as I say, legally a non-binding referendum is not at all the same thing as a general election. And even nationalisations are easier to undo than leaving the EU would be.

But I was a wavering remainer myself. I'm not a huge fan of the EU. I wish there had been a strong pan-Europe campaign to completely rebuild it but I fear that leaving now is going to go very very badly indeed.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Not the same at all. In order to actually pass such nationalisations he would need to maintain the support of a majority of MPs. The issue would not be settled the day after the election. There would be huge fights over it, both political and probably legal.

And if he only scraped a bare majority (like 52-48) there would be a lot of horse-trading and difficult votes to get things done. Plus, as I say, legally a non-binding referendum is not at all the same thing as a general election. And even nationalisations are easier to undo than leaving the EU would be.

But I was a wavering remainer myself. I'm not a huge fan of the EU. I wish there had been a strong pan-Europe campaign to completely rebuild it but I fear that leaving now is going to go very very badly indeed.

So, pretty much exactly what I said?

The voters approve the general direction and the politicians thrash out the details.

The difference being that you can gain a pretty big parliamentary majority on a minority of votes cast (Thanks FPTP), so you can implement huge changes to British society based on a minority opinion.

At least the referendum garnered a clear majority of votes.

Rich_cb wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy. All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election? If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government? Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority. It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster. Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we're not sure it will be an improvement?

Isn't that why parties publish a manifesto and we pretend to believe it?

brooksby wrote:

Isn't that why parties publish a manifesto and we pretend to believe it?

I'm not sure how that's different to the referendum campaign that Munge obviously felt provided inadequate information.

General Elections are fought on vague promises, sparse details and outright lies even though the outcomes can cause huge societal change based on a minority of votes.

Why should we hold referendums to a higher standard?

Rich_cb wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy. All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

Ok, so should we demand this before any General Election? If you want to change the government you must prove things will be better under a different government? Consider the likely radical shift in direction if Corbyn wins a majority. It might make things much better, it might be an absolute disaster. Should we not let people vote for Corbyn as we're not sure it will be an improvement?

Wouldn't that be a great idea! Perhaps something like a manifesto document which could contain a critique of current policies, detail alternative propositions along with realistic costings and referenced information sources. Prior to the election, politicians could be questioned about the contents of their manifesto so that the public have a better opportunity to understand the detail of what they are voting for, what the benefits or costs might be to them of doing so. Then at a later time the politicians who win based on their reasoned proposals can be held accountable about how well they have met those commitments.

In the specific case of BrExit, my preference would be for a confirmatory public vote about the single issue of whether to accept the negotiated deal or call the whole thing off, so as not to conflate with other duties of government. In a GE my vote would likely switch from Con to LibDem as BrExit, followed closely by Jeremy C currently represent the greatest existential threats to my family's opportunities, security and wellbeing.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Wouldn't that be a great idea! Perhaps something like a manifesto document which could contain a critique of current policies, detail alternative propositions along with realistic costings and referenced information sources. Prior to the election, politicians could be questioned about the contents of their manifesto so that the public have a better opportunity to understand the detail of what they are voting for, what the benefits or costs might be to them of doing so. Then at a later time the politicians who win based on their reasoned proposals can be held accountable about how well they have met those commitments.

In the specific case of BrExit, my preference would be for a confirmatory public vote about the single issue of whether to accept the negotiated deal or call the whole thing off, so as not to conflate with other duties of government. In a GE my vote would likely switch from Con to LibDem as BrExit, followed closely by Jeremy C currently represent the greatest existential threats to my family's opportunities, security and wellbeing.

I've pretty much addressed that point below.

Manifestos are basically a collection of vague promises and outright lies.

Not hugely different to the referendum campaign.

Mungecrundle wrote:

FrankH wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

<snip>

we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

That is absolutely your right in a free democracy. All I would ask is that if you wish to change the status quo, then you have to be able to clearly demonstrate with reasoned arguments why what you are proposing addresses an actual problem and is a better solution.

The funny thing is that the UK is a signatory to the Venice Convention, which defines how referendums are to be conducted, and on significant issues, it says that there should be a two-thirds majority and that close votes should be disregarded.  It also mandates a second referendum to confirm the results of the first.  Why haven't we done all that?

burtthebike wrote:

The funny thing is that the UK is a signatory to the Venice Convention, which defines how referendums are to be conducted, and on significant issues, it says that there should be a two-thirds majority and that close votes should be disregarded.  It also mandates a second referendum to confirm the results of the first.  Why haven't we done all that?

Looks like we have another Burt-Fact.

You know we can Google these things and check right Burt?

Unsurprisingly, given your track record of flagrant lies, the above statement is not true.

From the Venice convention:

"It is advisable not to provide for:

a. a turn-out quorum (threshold, minimum percentage), because it assimilates voters who
abstain to those who vote no;

b. an approval quorum (approval by a minimum percentage of registered voters), since it
risks involving a difficult political situation if the draft is adopted by a simple majority lower
than the necessary threshold."

Link:
https://www.venice.coe.int

FrankH wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

<snip>

we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

If that putative second referendum doesn't give the result I want then I won't accept it either.

This could go on for some time, couldn't it?

you must mean the putative third referendum. There was a very clear majority in the first referendum to remain in Europe, but the leavers never accepted the result and never shut up about it, squirreling away with their insidious lies and disinformation for decades. I fail to see why people who wish to remain in Europe should be tyranised and told to shut up by such a tiny majority as won the second referendum and not campaign to remain or, if it comes to it, rejoin.

Mungecrundle wrote:

BrExit has become a slanging match between deeply entrenched positions.

For Leavers it has become about respecting a vote that happened in 2016. This appears to trump virtually all evidences and qualified opinions which would indicate that as a nation and for most individuals we will be significantly worse off both economically and with respect to rights and freedoms we currently take for granted. The nebulous arguments about "Getting our country back" and "Taking back control" alongside a base view that the EU is a bloated, corrupt beaurocratic organisation seeking a federal European megastate and into which we pay far more than we receive in benefit equates leaving to some sort of freedom that we do not currently have. For many older leavers this harkens back to a golden age of the 1950s when jobs were plentiful and houses were cheap. For others Leave seems to represent an opportunity for as yet unspecified trade deals with the rest of the world that will somehow benefit UK plc without exposing those same industries to foreign competition. Yet others object to seeing changes in their communities caused by an influx of cheap EU labour and perceived unfairnesses in how those same EU citizens are able to access the generous UK benefits systems, and yes, I do believe that BrExit as whipped up by the tabloid press and their gutter journalism has encouraged more open racism and general gammoniness to out groups which includes creating an acceptable culture of aggression towards cyclists.

Amongst my family, work and social circle I know 5 people who voted Leave in 2016. One is my Father who doesn't know what day it is but is adament that we leave the EU as soon as possible. An older work colleague doesn't like that there is a Polish shop on her high street and a younger colleague who's politics are somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. (Women's rights, anti gun control, single mothers, euthanasia for the elderly, scrap the NHS etc). Of the 2 friends, one has travelled the World extensively, seen a lot of problems caused by mass migration and is fearful of Turkey joining the EU. The other has a son in the military and doesn't want an EU army. Both positions thoroughly debunked and they now say that they would support Remain in a fresh referendum.

Remain supporters point to the problems with the original referendum, much of which was based on (to be kind) alternative facts. Remain failed to make their case in the same one syllable sound bite mantras that Leave were able to. It is really hard to argue against hysterical tabloid headlines which focus on a minority of immigrants doing horrid things using very boring and often complex facts, figures and analysis. There is no truth any more just selective interpretation to support a position you already hold.

One thing that continues to strike me in all the debates about BrExit, both professional and amateur is the complete lack of agreed benefits that leaving the EU will bring beyond the nebulous wiffle about "Getting back control" or doing some trade deal with USA. Remainers can point to very real, tangible benefits of being part of the EU such as EHIC, no roaming charges, free trade, common technical standards, freedom to live, work, retire across 28 EU states, co-operation in security matters, policing, technology and research projects, workers rights, consumer protections, the many EU citizens who work in vital public services and private business etc. The EU is far from perfect but I, like millions of others am so convinced that turning our backs on our closest, largest trading block of culturally aligned and friendly countries is such a huge mistake that we will not accept the results of a fundamentally flawed public vote without at the very least a confirmatory second referendum based on the actual deal negotiated and the now much clearer implications of what that deal actually means.

Excellent. Nothing about the pavement puncher, but a good read. I might pliagarise this and post as a response to every stupid FB comment stating "Leave means Leave" or "We didn't vote for a deal". However it will fall on deaf ears. As you can lead a horse to water but can't make it drink, you can send an idiot to school but can't make it think.

I would recommend reading the Echo responses to the article, and any other cycling incident article. The comments are often thoroughly anti-cyclist even when one has been knocked down and killed, as it is obviously the victims fault for not using the cycle path/wearing hi-viz/helmet etc.  However, look at the names of the respondents..it's always the same few hatred filled people intentionally stirring it up. They probably work for the Echo, as it increases click time on their site.

burtthebike wrote:

To all the leave excusers, let me point out one thing:

London leave march, maybe 300 people.  Violence, swearing,  illegality, arrests.

London remain march; 1,000,000 at least.  Peaceful, civilised, law-abiding, quiet, no arrests.

But leave people are overwhelmingly nice.  Yeah, right.

So, you're implying that 52% of the population behave identically to the 300 demonstrators?

Can you not see any flaw with blaming the actions of a minority onto a large varied group? Sounds bigotted to me.

Also, there likely wasn't 1,000,000 - the best estimates put the numbers as a few hundred thousand. https://fullfact.org/europe/peoples-vote-two-million-no-evidence/

burtthebike wrote:

To all the leave excusers, let me point out one thing:

London leave march, maybe 300 people.  Violence, swearing,  illegality, arrests.

London remain march; 1,000,000 at least.  Peaceful, civilised, law-abiding, quiet, no arrests.

But leave people are overwhelmingly nice.  Yeah, right.

I'm still not seeing the link between me and 17.4 million others voting to leave three and a half years ago and a man threatening a 14 year old now. For tenuous links it beats the tornado in Kansas caused by the flapping of a butterfly's wings in the Sahara hands down.