Does not compute.
Why should they be shielded from the repercussions of voting out if they voted out?
As they no doubt say themselves, 'out means out'.
Brexit thread - what happens next
- Thread starter Gilly
- Start date
- Status
Does not compute.
Why should they be shielded from the repercussions of voting out if they voted out?
As they no doubt say themselves, 'out means out'.
People need to get over this thing about places voting in or out. We didn't vote for our areas to Leave or Remain, we voted for the United Kingdom to leave or remain as a whole. No area is a special snow flake, we're all citizens of the same country
Quite so, but - ironically enough - we're all getting stripped of our second citizenship thanks to the Brexiteers.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jul 2016
- Posts
- 130
The Brexiteers were the majority vote, I didn't vote for the Conservatives but they're the government
Did I say otherwise?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,106
True
1.8% is technically a majority, but that's too close to 50/50 to be definitive really.
1.8% is technically a majority, but that's too close to 50/50 to be definitive really.
Well no, that's how the system works, you can't move the goal posts afterwards. There would be no question about us Remaining if it was 51/49 in favour of Remain.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
I am opposed to another referendum but i distinctly remember Farage saying that 55% for remain wont cut it and it would tempt a second vote.
Just sayin'
But we didn't vote for Farage and he wasn't even part of the official Leave campaign so who gives a **** what he said
Caporegime
- Joined
- 30 Jul 2013
- Posts
- 30,106
All those people that say "Farage for PM"?
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2014
- Posts
- 1,780
If remain had won the only way we could leave is if a government was elected with the policy of leaving. Not another referendum.
There would also be no question of Brexiteers continuing to campaign for Brexit, so why do you expect Remainers to simply roll over and take it?
I think we'll leave and I think we probably should leave. As stupid and ridiculous a mess as the referendum was, it was held and despite the non-binding nature of the actual legislation it was sold to the British people as being a definite in/out affair. Unless there is a dramatic sea change in public opinion, the government must act on the vote.
But there's no reason that those of us who wish to Remain in the EU shouldn't seek to create that sea change, or seek to ensure that we retain as much as possible of the good things about the EU in whatever deal we end up with including free movement and free trade.
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
Lol, time you took a chill pill
I am just saying what Farage, who was essentially the figurehead of the leave campaign, said.
As for how the system works and what we voted on, as far as i know, the referendum was not legally binding and is not 'final'.
I am not arguing about what the vote should have been, so no need to wind yourself up over it. Just that the tune you are singing is off key.
That's his own opinion and certainly doesn't reflect mine. If it had been the other way around I'd have been disappointed but would have accepted the result because them's the rules. It's not a great mandate either way with that kind of margin IMO and will **** off lots of people regardless.
The problem with what people would consider a fair threshold, say 60-70% is that it's that's likely to be unachievable with something like this that basically splits the nation down the middle. The whole thing would essentially become a pointless exercise and would then be accused of being "rigged in favour of the establishment".
Ho hum.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 22,396
- Location
- Wilds of suffolk
No.
The areas that voted out that had historically received EU funds should not be protected by having their funding matched, thats whats wrong.
The areas that voted in that receive EU funding should have this guaranteed.
Take Scotland, they voted in, so any EU committments should be matched short/medium term if the EU stops the flow.
Take Cornwall, they voted out, they should not have any EU committments matched.
By the time there is any benefit from Brexit (if ever there is any and by then it would be impossible to tell), we would be in the hands of the UK government and the majority of any committed EU money would already have been spent. At that point as is ay above it would be impossible to tell and we would be past the EU plans so no need to protect (or reward) anyone
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Laughing at the handful of fundy remainers still posting in this thread.
Well have I missed something here? Before the vote there were quite a number of news reports from places such as Cornwall and Wales, both areas that receive significant amounts of EU funding. All the locals to a man and woman were giving it large, ooh aah we are going to vote out, what's the EU ever done for us. Was this another parallel universe or was I dreaming? Now they want the EU to keep funding them?
You can understand why universal suffrage was resisted for so long can't you.
Well have I missed something here? Before the vote there were quite a number of news reports from places such as Cornwall and Wales, both areas that receive significant amounts of EU funding. All the locals to a man and woman were giving it large, ooh aah we are going to vote out, what's the EU ever done for us. Was this another parallel universe or was I dreaming? Now they want the EU to keep funding them?
You can understand why universal suffrage was resisted for so long can't you.
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill
- Status