I'm seeing conflicting reports as to whether the usual postal voting for a British citizen living overseas will be applied to this specific referendum or not. If they are deliberately excluding all British citizens who are no longer resident in the U.K., I might start to become a little cynical.....
The Date is Set.
- Thread starter jockscott
- Start date
Expats who have been expats for less than 15 years are entitled to vote. So become cynical if you want, but it don't change the facts.
However the OCT's that will be affected will not be able to vote.
I'm continually amazed at the naivety of some , supposedly, people in the know.
If individual countries would be able to trade with UK after Brexit, then it's logical that UK could trade now with any other country, world-wide, that it wanted to, without approval of EU.
In which case there would be little point in leaving.
Does he not understand how the EU works?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-35601369
If individual countries would be able to trade with UK after Brexit, then it's logical that UK could trade now with any other country, world-wide, that it wanted to, without approval of EU.
In which case there would be little point in leaving.
Does he not understand how the EU works?
Overseas Territories and Countries.
Did he say that the trade with those EU countries would not be subject to EU rules?
However:
Even if the free trading with non-EU countries were not an issue, there would still be many, many reasons for leaving.
Just to go back to a point Himaginn brought up earlier;
Martin Schultz said that the European Parliament could amend the 'agreement' if it wanted, so what are we going to vote on?
Martin Schultz said that the European Parliament could amend the 'agreement' if it wanted, so what are we going to vote on?
That is absolutely OUTRAGEOUS - and against all principles of democracy!
I hate Camoron and the EU with a vengeance, but if it was 51-49 to Remain, I would grudgingly have to accept it and get on with life.
I agree. That is not how it's done here.
'First past the post' is good enough for the negotiator so it's good enough for the result.
Good question. But then as the law has stood for a long time there is no distinct English citizenship or Scottish citizenship, only U.K. citizenship. Restricting it to those U.K. citizens actually living in Scotland at the time was probably fairer than the alternative of allowing all U.K. citizens to vote, meaning that the much larger population of England could have dominated the voting when the majority of those living in England have no direct ties to Scotland and may - like myself - never have even set foot there.
Yes, accepted. But if you were called out on strike or some such important issue, wouldn't you want a reasonable majority decision.
I would!
I don't see why.
Isn't that what is forced on the trade unions in a yes/no (choice of two) vote but a majority (minority?) of one over the next highest (of many) is good enough for MPs.
It depends what the hypocrites want.
Isn't that what is forced on the trade unions in a yes/no (choice of two) vote but a majority (minority?) of one over the next highest (of many) is good enough for MPs.
It depends what the hypocrites want.
Stripping away your emotive comment, we're left with; "well yes"
But in such an important, historic vote, wouldn't you expect at least a sizable majority to determine the future of the country.
Strikes lasting a few days/ weeks are hardly life changing for the country for the forthcoming decades.
This vote will be just that kind of life changing decision.
But, it is what it is, and I accept that. I just think it's insufficient. But I will work with the decision.
Similar threads
- Johnmelad502
- General Discussion