Absolutely nobody has ever said, or imagined, that the referendum poll "... was never going to be counted". Absolutely everybody knew that it was going to be counted, that the results would be widely published, and that the figures, whatever they were, of this advisory poll would be taken into consideration along with many other considerations. It would have been possible (and far preferable) to have set up the referendum as a legally binding poll, but the decision was taken, very clearly and specifically, not to have a binding poll. That is why the electoral laws which apply strictly to all binding elections did not apply to the 2016 referendum; gross violations of electoral law, which in a Parliamentary Election would have led to a re-run of the vote and criminal sanctions for the perpetrators, resulted in no such action in this case. It is particularly offensive that there was a tactic of waiting until after the vote had taken place on a clearly advisory basis, and only then transmogrifying it into a supposedly binding, irrevocable, irreversible expression of the "will of the people".
I read these messages as another emphasis of how times and opinions change and as a result it's reasonable to assume that the opinion of the country has changed, like manifestos and marriage vows. I take from that that any indication of this change of mood on Brexit is why we should remain. But at what point do anything get actioned. Even if the mood has changed surely that just means we wait for it to change again, and then wait for it to change again and again. Let's action Brexit now and if anyone wants to put the EU in their manifesto later they can. Then if they get elected on the promise of rejoining the EU they can ignore their promise as will be their want cos they will have achieved power and things change. TB
And that's OK, yes? Have you speculated as to why elections are actually worthwhile in any real sense? You know, whilst Parties are ignoring, for terribly good reasons, their campaign promises? Talk about "settling for less"! The 2016 was theoretically advisory but the UK PM at the time promised that the outcome would be enacted. The 2017 Tories (the Party who promised to honour the referendum) Labour and the DUP had all based their manifestos on leaving the EU. Had the Greens and/or the LibDems become the government, they could, arguably, have ignored the "advisory" 2016 Referendum but - guess what? These parties formed no part of the government. Who formed the government? Two parties, in an effective coalition, whose manifestos promised to honour the 2016 Ref result. This is not rocket surgery, it really isn't. And really, does it need to be spelled out? Democracy is not about people "knowing what they voted for", it is about honouring *what* they voted for. Obviously, a system where a very restrictive subset of people are allowed to vote would be attractive to some folk, but that is not a democratic system - that is something quite different. What do you suggest are the criteria? 2016 Ref was not an "opinion poll". Nor was the 2017 GE. And if you see no difference between the usual governmental promises to, for instance, take a penny off the basic rate of income tax, or reduce inflation to "x%" ... and the promise to extract the UK from the EU ... well, you're simply ill-equipped to take part in the discussion. There is a difference here that is not simply one of degree and you really ought to realise that. So government is the same as marriage, borrowing money and buying stuff? Little wonder you're confused!
I'm sure that you like I Pete, may have wondered into the strangeland that is the guardian and it's comments section, there are many who have said just such a thing and I believe some even tried to take the government to court over it. My bare knowledge on the referendum is that it was a legal referendum and was advisory, the prime minister however has the right of office, to decide to act upon it or not. The video I posted and hundreds more out there, show quite clearly he announced BEFORE the vote had even taken place, that any result, whether to leave or remain, would be acted upon. Which would suggest your claim of...... it is particularly offensive that there was a tactic of waiting until after the vote had taken place on a clearly advisory basis, and only then transmogrifying it into a supposedly binding, irrevocable, irreversible expression of the "will of the people"......would be quite incorrect
Please don’t talk to me like I’m an idiot The point I was making is that politicians tell bare faced lies to get us to vote for them knowing full well that the manifestos are never going to be enacted on.
And on a forum based on the love of Italian bikes too - so much bollocks quite incredible! What happened
I note that you find it offensive that an advisory vote seems to have been tramsogrifyed into a binding will of the people. I can't begin to tell you how offensive I find it that people in the minority, like you, hold up the "it was only advisory" to the majority. It is elitist beyond belief and makes the statement loud and clear that the majority are oafs for voting Brexit and because we, the minority, understand the word advisory everyone should know that the result doesn't count ( unless of course remain had won in which case it would count). I'm afraid you and you ilk make me feel quite sick. TB
Brexit crisis: David Mellor says he’s "never been more embarrassed and humiliated", although his hairdresser insists that’s what he asked for.
100% agree, but it is important nevertheless because by being statistically insignificant it says to the people trying to come up with a policy that half the people don't want to leave.. That 50 odd % might vote them out of power - hence a half baked proposal they came up with. as apposed to the 'ignorants' - misguided views on macroscopic issues.. Experts may have a micro view but it's a view worth listening to so you can build up a bigger picture - you don't discount it. As someone who voted remain - I don't accept that the referendum was intended as advisory, it was made very clear, albeit incorrectly from a legal point of view as we were to find out later, that the outcome of the referendum was to be actioned: that is why it had such a large turnout on both sides. The popular vote was to leave and as misguided as that is, it is what should have happened - even though it would leave many in the uk in a worse financial position in the short to medium term. At least we can all agree UK politics, as it is in much of the world, is in desperate need of reform, and the sooner the better.
I'm sure Dave could remember another time he was embarrassed if he wanted too https://home.bt.com/news/on-this-da...job-after-papers-expose-affair-11364006648903
But it was clearly said in Magna Carta that whilst indicative of the wishes of the serfs, the results of the EU referendum would be totally irrelevant and despised as such https://www.bl.uk/magna-carta/videos/what-is-magna-carta
‘The popular vote was to leave and as misguided as that is’ Oh look at you and your ‘me me me’ I’m right and more intelligent than the misguided majority, quite silly really and a little bit timid of you What’s your personal selfish gripe?
shots fired.. you're right, but it's a pretty low bar; perhaps more humility needed. But given we haven't left the EU yet it would seem that i'm not alone in the view that it might be misguided.
There are millions of people who think that remaining in the EU is the misguided view. If we were not members now and politicians were trying to con us into joining,do you think they'd get away with it? Ted Heath admitted he lied to take us in to the EC,(documented fact),and a subsequent government had a referendum,(no mention of being advisory),asking if we wanted to stay in,because they knew our membership was unconstitutional and needed at least the cloak of legality. Only those who have the power to frustrate the 2016 referendum result are to blame for this fiasco,but they have enlisted millions of disgruntled remoaners who are prepared to destroy democracy in their desperation to get their own selfish way. Wriggle on the hook all you like: but when your elected representatives cannot reach an agreement and therefore ask the electorate to make the decision for them,when the same elected politicians declare on multiple occasions through every known media outlet that they will abide by the result of the referendum,then that is called democracy in action. If you don't like it,you have the right to campaign for a different system of government,but the one we have right now says that the majority get their way when asked. The scum infecting Westminster and Whitehall have been hoist by their own petard,their corruption and dishonesty laid bare for everyone to see,and any aggravation caused by their failure to deliver on their promise can be squarely laid at the door of themselves and their anti-democratic supporters.
i agree, please see my previous post. The popular vote was leave and we should therefore leave; i'm happy to go with the majority even if i don't believe in it's merits.
I'd like some one with balls to bite the bullet and get on with it and genuinely leave. I'm reminded of when we went decimal, some were convinced Britian would lose it's place in the world that we were rushing into something we didn't know what would happen afterwards etc etc Where it got better was when someone with balls said, right, we are doing it and moving on. Sure enough, once it started on the new coins, we moved on, some had ickle grumbles but we got used to it quite quick. I think that is where we are and where we need to be now. It don't think it will heal the country fast and for some not at all but most I suspect they will just be glad we got on with it so we can move forward and at least know this sillyness can be brought to a close.
Ah, I see you have met Peter. Peter is great. Peter is a walking advertisement that the terms "educated" and "intelligent" are in no way interchangeable. The source of the embarrassment was being caught on camera whilst return from a Verhofstadt Look-Alike Contest. You do understand that the purpose of democracy is to make decisions where not everyone agrees, right? Thought experiment - when a referendum on a binary choice issue is run, do you go with the large minority because you don't wish to upset them? Or do you go with the majority, so that you don't upset *them*? If the result is close, if you decide that the majority who voted for change was insufficiently large, and decide not to enact that decision, you are going with the minority. This is anti-democratic and I invite you now to offer your alternative political system. That's correct. You listen to experts in order to be informed on issues that lie within their purview. Some people take listening to experts to unrealistic extremes though. For (an extreme) example, Prof Brian Cox and his views on Brexit ... I see no bones to pick out of this dish. Absolutely. Be careful though, what you wish for. You may get a Trumpish PM if you go down that route. Are you ready for that?
He doesn’t do explanation. Just likes to throw in lame insults to those that disagree with him. Then finishes off with a huge smiley or saying he loves you so that you feel better. Have you not noticed?
