From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sat Dec 13 10:23:03 2025 Return-path: To: hex at ..seen.ac.am Subject: Re: Re: Budget details leaked References: <7yGlYEEKjoOpFA6a@perry.uk> <8557963356.bda29a8f@uninhabited.net> <9kmEdc7MTRPpFAis@perry.uk> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17656155611267] reject notnew Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 10:23:01 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. This post contains insufficient new material. Similar points have been made already in this discussion, which is in danger of becoming too repetitive. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Sat Dec 13 08:46:01 2025 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=av3A9iAk1Dpcxdj3A5sJjDEXYAJrhh0hFqMnWLEnP6g=; t=1765615555; x=1766220355; b=JkKF67Uue2qFTKBzIs2v2c+/3jAG4ySMn3FalyHxMXl0Uvcb3pcJMiR3b1xyw eDG2bto+j9TGMS > From: Norman Wells > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Budget details leaked > Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2025 08:45:53 +0000 > Message-ID: > References: > <7yGlYEEKjoOpFA6a@perry.uk> > <8557963356.bda29a8f@uninhabited.net> > <9kmEdc7MTRPpFAis@perry.uk> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net wrn+tRsrrnA0uzvOVfawFQQ98gqENCsFQWDqAu6DVYEHYCUmPU > Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mys/ROOZc2QwFPauiDhLhkt/Yis= sha256:/lL3tzyjQsqHqSoL8L8WJ5QjANnVo/z10oYV+Pujd0E= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-GB > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 54 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=5.4 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 13/12/2025 07:25, Roland Perry wrote: > > In message <8557963356.bda29a8f@uninhabited.net>, at 20:39:39 on Thu, 11 > > Dec 2025, Roger Hayter remarked: > >>>> One of the main characteristics of the vote was people who were > >>>> fundamentally Remainers, expected an overwhelming Remain result, but > >>>> who > >>>> voted Leave "To give Cameron a bloody nose". The unintended consequence > >>>> of this was, the vote came out as the famous wafer-thin majority to > >>>> Leave. > >>> > >>> Well, doubtless any further vote on the subject will be under a > >>> supermajority, just like Remain clamoured for after the 2016 vote. > >>> > >>> “That should have had a supermajority requirement!”, they kept > >>> saying, but > >>> they never demanded it beforehand, and you can bet your bottom dollar > >>> that > >>> the two-faced Remainers won’t demand one next time. > >> > >> To be honest, I am pretty sure both sides will demand it next time. > >> The only > >> debate will be how to respond to an inconclusive result. > > > > An inconclusive supermajority is a new concept to me. > > It means the awkward gap when a vote gives a clear majority but not > enough of one to meet arbitrary applied supermajority criteria. > > In a democracy given a free vote on a binary matter, why should a simple > majority ever be deemed insufficient? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmk9PoUACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x4OzAgAqZRSRA2UfghA+H82WYTT04tlVT8yssvfXbVsexmbvvTy5XCG6O8EZFgu oOoibVA8Qst+M9LZNyF6auANzE9EfmrGFR72e1b3ZROd0vhDB+tB0coKsldzcgNc /H+nGDjEJbwKwNItnVkIYR6n8r7AAGNOKk+ALl/U8PbaI/OcAZWc6AzDmt7je5ye brWyoHhWpXvyfpQ0UZGJXoNNI/dv88eXkITmK6TVfAHLqNJi4Dt/5G51W7FGBPyo oWCH8duYsul8QrPY8gIS+sw31MrM8sjBVBq85mfqAnbZT1+3nV9z1UPIxx7+ut1g EqhagQgVQR2w5mLuMfbIgeFAKty42Q== =09bI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----