Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by bulldog147, Nov 1, 2019.
Even fewer voted to remain, what's your point?
He doesn't have one, it's some silly comment that crops up every so often. It was an advisory vote and there wasn't a minimum turnout requirement. There isn't anything to suggest that those who stayed at home and didn't bother voting had substantially different views or were skewed substantially one way or the other regardless.
It was one of the highest turnouts of an election (or referendum) for years - so the whole "what about the people who didn't turn out" line is just guff.
The referendum was billed as as a "once in a lifetime vote", the outcome of which would be respected. It had the highest voter participation of any vote in this country, and you believe it's right to ignore this?
Well politicians words don't matter anymore, I thought we established this? It's rather amusing that it's equally trustworthy and untrustworthy depending on how it affects people's positions...
If people have changed their minds then why not?
If some/many of the people who wanted Brexit have died off and the next generation don't want Brexit then why not?
I completely fail to see the logic that historical voting is more important than current voting.
When we decide our next government, do we check to see what the vote was in 2005, or 1997, or 1950... or do we hold fresh elections and elect the govt that gets the most votes from the most recent voting?
When and why is a historical vote ever more imperative or more important than a current vote?
You seem to be conflating a referendum and a GE again...not that I'm averse to having another future referendum on the EU, but it is a bit odd to do it so soon and before the result of the previous one has even been implemented.
If as I said a majority now do not wish it to be implemented at all, then I see nothing undemocratic about a confirmatory (or revocatory) referendum.
Also nobody is conflating anything with anything else.
Separate names with a comma.