@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Agree with that... You are a traitor
Easy thing to say when you're hiding behind a keyboard, trollboy.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
Well he certainly is now you’ve piped up.
Shooters remember the handshake....
Nescafé ? ;0)
Mmm you suprise me... Thought you had more honour.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Agree with that... You are a traitor
Easy thing to say when you're hiding behind a keyboard, trollboy.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Just suppose you didn’t understand or didn’t feel qualified to answer the question as posed on the ballot paper. I would suggest that on that basis not muddying the water by voting for votings sake would be seen as a sensible choice.
Not having an option on the ballot paper for declaring that you didn’t know was a flaw that might ultimately fuck us all over.
So we should count the opinions of people who didn't think they were capable of forming an opinion?
This nonsense about leave not getting a majority is getting ridiculous.
Well said.. But do you know, you are dealing with the ridiculous...
Well he certainly is now you’ve piped up.
Shooters remember the handshake....
Nescafé ? ;0)
Mmm you suprise me... Thought you had more honour.
Lighten up on that one chippy.
Just surprised and you know why. Could understand the other one as like me has irish blood in them but i hate mine.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Agree with that... You are a traitor
Easy thing to say when you're hiding behind a keyboard, trollboy.
I work for and defend my country on your behalf... Do you.
Another attempt to get the thread shut. The other Brexiters on here deserve better as they are actually making informed comments which add to the debate, which many people enjoy reading.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Agree with that... You are a traitor
Easy thing to say when you're hiding behind a keyboard, trollboy.
I work for and defend my country on your behalf... Do you.
Sitting at home clicking a little smiley face that says LOL on it 18 hours a day isn't defending my country.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
Don't mention Google when Yoda Chippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
By repeating my message three times, you are subconsciously admitting I am right
Moggy and his pal probably weren't expecting there to be a recording of the imaginary conversation behind their staged question in the House this week...
Doesn't stop the Daily Mail reporting the initial allegations as gospel in today's paper despite the apology being issued yesterday. Shovelling frantically for a hard Brexit.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Who says all that didn't vote couldn't be bothered? Vote was 23rd June. Hundreds of thousands of students would be returning home from college. Where were they registered to vote? Home or college? Had they even applied? Most would never have seen a ballot paper. Probably had important stuff like exams to worry about and switched over when Boris or Farage were on TV. This is why a 1st past the post vote on a non-binding referendum should not lead us over the cliff edge.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
Agree with that... You are a traitor
Easy thing to say when you're hiding behind a keyboard, trollboy.
I work for and defend my country on your behalf... Do you.
Sitting at home clicking a little smiley face that says LOL on it 18 hours a day isn't defending my country.
I will be in at 11 tonight watching you and chizz logging in and out.... But i will still be at the match tomorrow... Will you.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Who says all that didn't vote couldn't be bothered? Vote was 23rd June. Hundreds of thousands of students would be returning home from college. Where were they registered to vote? Home or college? Had they even applied? Most would never have seen a ballot paper. Probably had important stuff like exams to worry about and switched over when Boris or Farage were on TV. This is why a 1st past the post vote on a non-binding referendum should not lead us over the cliff edge.
They were given extra time to register, given the mountains of evidence to suggest they would have voted remain, they had ample opportunity too. I. E. rules were bent in their behalf, if not the result would have been wider.... Wonder whether mr 37% has ever considered that.. Derrr of course not.
Moggy and his pal probably weren't expecting there to be a recording of the imaginary conversation behind their staged question in the House this week...
Doesn't stop the Daily Mail reporting the initial allegations as gospel in today's paper despite the apology being issued yesterday. Shovelling frantically for a hard Brexit.
If only they were as balanced as the guardian... Btw i hate the mail.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
Don't mention Google when Yoda Chippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).
Its not a red bull mate, its the copying and pasting from it and pretending its your own work, as has happened here too many times, the culprits know i know and this behaviour gladly has declined a little.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
Don't mention Google when Yoda Chippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).
Its not a red bull mate, its the copying and pasting from it and pretending its your own work, as has happened here too many times, the culprits know i know and this behaviour gladly has declined a little.
Can you provide an example of someone posting a link and pretending it is their own work? How would that even work? Unless they copy an article and paste it in a post without the link?
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
I do wonder whether or not some remainers would use the same argument if 'remain' had received '51%'.
I am fairly sure that they would be making the same argument that a few Brexiteers are currently making.
In other words, most people use whichever argument suits their agenda.
As Nigel Farage said, if Remain had gotten 52% then it would be unfinished business and I agree with that. UKIP certainly would not have disbanded and the right would still have continued their anti-EU agenda. And I wouldn't have expected anything else.
Yet Brexiters expected the rest of the British people to shut up and accept their opinion as "the will of the people" even though they do not represent even half of the British people.
So the argument that Remainers would be acting as petulantly and undemocratically as Brexiters if they had won by a similar margin is total nonsense. We've been letting you have your input for 40 years and we would still have accepted a large portion of the British public had issues with our EU membership. Whereas Brexiters seem to act that only their opinion matters and anyone who wants to stop Brexit is either a traitor or not respecting democracy. Dangerous in my opinion to let such attitudes go unchecked.
As usual, you place all Brexiters together as if we only have a hive mind and no individual ideas and thoughts.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
Sorry to say that I find you to be a minority, both on here and in the wider public discourse. Many Brexiters seem, mysteriously, to have no opinion on any other political isse than Brexit. Many are just people who feel a need to be furious, and Brexit is easy to get furious about. Oh and immigration, which to them is the same thing. Ask them their views on a hypothecated tax for the NHS, the rebalancing of the UK economy away from London, how to pay for university education, how to tax Google, etc etc, and they melt away.
Don't mention Google when Yoda Chippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).
Its not a red bull mate, its the copying and pasting from it and pretending its your own work, as has happened here too many times, the culprits know i know and this behaviour gladly has declined a little.
Can you provide an example of someone posting a link and pretending it is their own work? How would that even work? Unless they copy an article and paste it in a post without the link?
He originally accused me of that. But we are best mates now :-)
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
"....while the idea any government can deliver a worthy Brexit follows a belief system approaching those in that religious conflict."
Quite correct, but mainly because the EU regards Brexit as blasphemy against the religion that is the EU and for them it is a holy war. No, Brexit is simply the UK leaving an organisation, and that organization looking out for its and its members' own interests
If it was not able to be characterised as a religious conflict, Brexit would mean Brexit and an adult discussion would proceed to establish the trade arrangements post Brexit position as the first stage. Why has that not happened - because the EU said it wouldn't. Why? The UK is a signatory to the Treaty that states that leaving happens first. There is an obligation on both parties to seek an agreed separation, so that it can happen reasonably quickly - throwing in trade would extend the process for years
Agreeing from the outset that the mutual objective was a clean break and a trade agreement which ensured optimal economic outcomes would have meant end of the Brexit debate. It could have been on any modified existing model. The debate would have started by agreeing the outcome, a debate the EU flatly insisted would not take place. The whole purpose of the Article 50 process and trade negotiations is to achieve the clean break and economic arrangements that are mutually satisfactory. Was there any point in beginning the debate, as you suggest, when Theresa May's Lancaster House speech had already closed off the avenues for debate? It's the UK that has refused existing models, modified or otherwise.
Believers in the EU as a crux that the UK economy depends upon for its very existence will never accept withdrawal from the EU as being an acceptable democratic decision. To then focus on the potential negative effect on the economy because of the EU having to protect its religion, and blame UK voters for being non-believers, is perverse. Do you mean crutch, rather than crux? I accept the referendum result as "an" acceptable democratic decision, I disagree with anyone claiming it was the right decision for the UK, or EU - and I can always blame others for what I consider to be their mistakes. It's like finding out that c52% of those who voted are Palarse fans - they're perfectly entitled to be wrong, I just won't accept their choice as the right one.
It is convenient for EU supporters to ascribe the inability to negotiate an optimal economic outcome as the fault of the government yet don't have the integrity to admit that outcome is the EU's objective, or if they do, it should not be criticised. No, I ascribe the failure to engage seriously with the process of exiting the EU, and the inability to recognise the clearly worded rules that govern that organisation, wasting time playing silly buggers, and, even now, having no clear idea of what it is they want, to the UK Government. They have to get their fingers out and work out what they are trying to do, and only then can they negotiate an outline of what the future relationship might be as part of the Article 50 talks. No comprehensive trade agreement will be completed, for ratification, by October 2018 or, indeed, October 2020.
If the reality of the EU's position is accepted it gives substance to the argument for facing down the EU given the difference between a sub-optimal and least optimal outcome is marginal. The government is proceeding at the moment in the hope that the EU is bluffing and an optimal outcome for both the EU and the UK can be achieved. The UK can certainly try to face the EU27 down, if it wants, but I don't believe for an instant that the UK Government is proceeding - it's going round in circles, frantically negotiating with itself, rather than the EU27.
The UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it. Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
So yes I entirely agree the UK is looking like a buffoon trying to convert religious fanatics to a secular outlook. The UK allows all religious beliefs to be worshipped, it just stopped allowing religion to lay down laws many year ago.
You bang on about a sub-optimal outcome as an EU objective - it really isn't, because more times than enough EU leaders have made clear that they would prefer the UK to stay. As, I think, American Express used to say, membership has its privileges. The most privileged/optimal relationship with the EU is membership. Any other relationship is less good. It's just the nature of the beast. Every trading bloc around the World affords its members benefits that are greater than those available outside the bloc. The UK has freely chosen to leave, unless it changes its mind (unlikely), it will - it is the UK that has chosen a sub-optimal relationship with the EU27 post Brexit.
PS. I'm a bit disappointed that you chose an analogy of the EU as some kind of cult, @Dippenhall, it's sadly lacking in seriousness and, IMHO, beneath you.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
@Dippenhall made the point that the UK's objective is to have its cake and eat it and that Remain voters will laugh and say don't be silly, we must accept the sub-optimal outcome the EU has as its objective.
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
In Barnier's defence, I understand that the Canada deal does include some access for services, but not the degree currently enjoyed by EU member states themselves.
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
I find the Italian comment very interesting.
For what it's worth, I do too.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.
The difference is the rules are clear cut in all of your examples. There were no provisions for what would happen in the case of any result (even a 50 50 tie) in the legislation. Hence why electoral laws did not apply in the referendum. There effectively was no result legally speaking, just a poll to be interpreted.
This, for me, is the biggest problem.
Why was the referendum not used as exactly that, a poll, which MPs can then vote on based on how their constituents voted, if you don't like it, you can vote your MP out. Gay marriage in Australia being a useful example I think.
However, to suggest brexit did not get a majority is just wrong.
Suggest you look up the definitions of majority and minority. Or perhaps you can provide a link to a definition where 37% of those eligible to vote is classed as a majority. Leave had a very slightly larger minority than Remain. It most certainly did not get a majority. Which makes terms like "will of the people" and delivering "what the British people want" laughable.
When talking about results surely those who couldn't be bothered to vote can't be included.
Who says all that didn't vote couldn't be bothered? Vote was 23rd June. Hundreds of thousands of students would be returning home from college. Where were they registered to vote? Home or college? Had they even applied? Most would never have seen a ballot paper. Probably had important stuff like exams to worry about and switched over when Boris or Farage were on TV. This is why a 1st past the post vote on a non-binding referendum should not lead us over the cliff edge.
I'd list those people very firmly in the "couldn't be bothered" camp.
Comments
But, as time moves on, evidence is slowly growing that maybe the EU will move after all. Their current intransigence is a negotiating ploy.
Let’s see what Italy are now saying:
https://bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-24/should-brexit-deal-include-financial-services-italy-thinks-so
Italian leader Paolo Gentiloni said that any accord reached between the U.K. and the European Union must include financial services.
Gentiloni, in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos Wednesday, said that among the remaining EU states there was a “strongly prevailing position supporting the necessity of having a good deal with the U.K.”
Financial services “will be part of the agreement,” since excluding them “is totally unrealistic,” he said. That position jars with the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, who has said that a Brexit deal similar to the free-trade pact struck with Canada is the most likely scenario for Britain once it leaves.
What about France? Macron suggested in a BBC interview over the weekend a couple of weeks back that a deal could cover aspects of financial services, “but it depends on what you’re ready to put on the table in terms of precondition.”
Belgium?
https://ft.com/content/c9f8506c-df17-11e7-a8a4-0a1e63a52f9c
Belgian prime minister Charles Michel has said that a “Ceta plus plus” should be the cornerstone of the new UK-EU relationship.
As a recent EU commentator noted, what makes this so frustrating is that there are now signs that the EU governments are prepared to engage constructively; there is far less of a desire to ‘punish’ Britain than in the immediate aftermath of the vote.
Even Angela Merkel expresses her frustration that May won’t say what the UK wants.
Lord Bridges, who served as May’s Brexit minister until a few months ago, puts it starkly: ‘Four months on, and there are still no clear answers to basic, critical questions. All we hear, day after day, are conflicting, confusing voices.’
It’s about time our political leaders actually defined exactly what needs to be done and then sit down with the EU and get it started. Then appropriate forecasts and costings can be done for a ‘bespoke’ deal.
You know full well that many of us have been more than willing to debate and listen to counter arguments.
However, if that suits your agenda, up to you.
YodaChippy is around - it's like a red bull to a rag (oops sorry wrong thread).But I probably would have given long term EU residents a say as well. Tax payers who had lived here for over a certain period would qualify.
Honest.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/02/tory-rebels-launch-bid-to-keep-uk-in-customs-union-with-eu
:-)
The EU27 has always made clear that they would prefer a close economic relationship arising from a future deal (the Irish Government, for one, has been consistent on the kind of deal it would like to see). However, the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister over the last year are incompatible with what the EU27 have envisaged.
I have seen little sign of a shift in either side's positions - very little that has been said about financial services access is incompatible with the preferred EU27 solution (Single Market & Customs Union).
We need to pay close attention to the mandate that Barnier has been given for Phase 2 of the Exit negotiations, because he will not be able to negotiate an outline trade agreement that has not been agreed by the EU27.
PS. I'm a bit disappointed that you chose an analogy of the EU as some kind of cult, @Dippenhall, it's sadly lacking in seriousness and, IMHO, beneath you.
I am just cautioning that it is not inconsistent with the EU27 position to date. It may be that he suggested that all financial sectors be included, but if he did not, it is not really a new position.