Yes but they didn't, and that is what in part makes it a total farce,and really the basis of my point. The few dupe the masses into furthering their agenda and then when the public suddenly realised that they're not getting what they voted for, they are "too late". The masses opinion then changes but the few have already taken their snapshot and use it to their advantage - in full knowledge that their action now no longer represents the will of the majority.

I just keep hearing a lot of "OMG can't you just accept majority opinion". But what if it simply isn't? What if it WAS a majority opinion based on people believing "facts and figures" that have already proven to be fantasy? None of it is real, it's the illusion of input. Smoke and mirrors of the powerful designed to win a "game" and get that snapshot opinion poll at just the right second to further machinations that have nothing at all to do with what people thought they were voting on. I don't understand why more leave voters aren't furious about the process, about being so blatantly and unashamedly used, even if they still believe the outcome was for the best. I don't understand why we're all still playing along with the list process that makes all of us so, so small. If anything, we should all be United in disgust by the very process, the fact that no one - NO ONE - on either side of any of these votes will just give us the facts and the figures and let us truly decide.

Maybe we're all just so blinded by the disappointment / excitement of the result every time that we fail to stop and question the rest of it.

Yes, and you are right to be sure BOTS.

Oh it's ok, I think someone asked bob down the dog track....Apparently it can't be done.

You speak the truth that politicians deceive the GBP with lies in order to secure their support on proposals, but when it comes to the 'EU Referendum' and any suggestion that alleged lies any 'Leave' politicians told 'Leave' voters, is reason enough to contest the legality of the Referendum, or justification for holding a further one, then, unfortunately, we are on very shaky ground, because:

1) I can personally PROVE that the 'Remain' campaigners lied on EVERY SINGLE ISSUE which formed the WHOLE case to remain.
m
2) We would NOT even be in the EU in the first place, had Sir Edward Teeth, I mean Heath, not LIED TO us when he took us in to what was then The Common Market', after which, we were lied to again in Wilson's 1975 Referendum, when we voted to stay in.

So, in my opinion, there is nothing to be gained from anyone using any alleged 'Leave' Campaign lies in order to try to justify any ridiculous notion of any second Referendum.

i'm basing it on knowledge that i have. Is that a problem?

Any other member's knowledge is a problem if it doesn't fit the viewpoint of the one's questioning it BOTS - you ought to know that. :laugh:

So you know more than the Scottish first minister, is that what you are saying? Because that's what it sounds like you are saying.

I know more than the Scottish First Minister - I know what DEMOCRACY is.

That is a lovely idea. Unrealistic, but lovely.

Oh two of you are experts now?..Oh sorry, experts are so last season.

I think her legal team will know more than any of us and if there is anything in the devolved power bill that has any guarantees as to constitutional change or any mention of Scotland's protection as to the EU.

Then even if there is the slightest piece of a condition that can be used that way, then for as long as Scotland is part of the UK, the UK will not be able to proceed and force Scotland to comply.

There may be nothing of that nature there but she thinks she has come across something, if its not then she cannot veto the move.
If by any small chance there is anything that can be used to maybe veto,then it will be her 'democratic' right to use it to protect Scotland and possibly veto this change, and that will be 'democracy' too.

None of us know every little thing in the devolved powers acts there have been to Scotland, absolutely none of us.

There have been experts in constitutional law that have already commented on it. Anyway, i'm not going to get in an argument about it. What will be will be .... my feeling is we will end up associate EU members anyway so hold on to your hats :laugh:

I agree and would be happy myself with us being associate members,I doubt most of the leave side will be too happy with that however.

EXPERTS?! WE DON'T NEED EXPERTS! THEY'RE NAZI SCUM! We know best!

So I've just heard a figure this morning that might interest you, in Middlesborough a deprived City in the North East, for every 1.00 they gave the EU they got 1.07 back, care to comment on that silly idea.

That would depend entirely on what the associate membership meant, what was in it for us, if we had to pay for it, whether we would have any control over our own borders and if and how much we had to comply with EU law. If we can have a trade deal without any of the other crap and didn't have to pay more than tarrifs outsiders pay for it, sure why not.

If Sturgeon found a way to prevent the vote going forward it would be unforgivable.

We would be setting the terms for any associate membership, so yes, thats how i see it ending up. It would basically be the re-negotiating terms that should have happened in the first place before we left.

Not really jaxie and hi by the way.

Nicola Sturgeon runs a Nationalist govt in Scotland, she has to at all times consider the wishes of her citizens.
She is in a difficult position of having just over a third of her electorate voting to leave the EU and nearly two thirds voting to remain.
Now that was really a decisive result.

It is then her duty to do anything and everything she can to halt the process of herself and her nation being forced out of the EU massively against their wishes.
For her not to try to do that would be what was unforgivable.

Equally Northern Ireland too who voted with a double figure majority to remain, 55.8% to 44.2%.

Whereas the vote to leave in Wales was only a majority of 5% and in England also smaller being 6.8%

The main thrust of the leave campaigns were to remove the free movement of EU citizens, it is very likely under associate membership that free movement will have to be still accepted.

If the leave campaigns can now likely accept that, what was the issue before then and why make it a major part of the campaign,if in the end we end up still having to accept it.
Along with other conditions too, that we will not be able to vote on in future if they change them again but will still have to accept..

Middlesbrough is a town, not actually a city.
Only parts of the town are run down...mostly populated by asslum seekers, Middlesbrough has the highest quota of asylum seekers in the country , perhaps the 7p in the pound they receive is to pay for their housing and upkeep:shrug:

Maybe it is, and now there will be no excess but the asylum seekers will still be there, because we all know that Oxford can't afford to house asylum seekers.

There will be towns and cities where this scenario is replicated too, so where will the excess come from?

Hopefully it will be a kick up the backside for the authorities and the applications for asylum seekers will be speeded up.

Are you thinking that those who have homes in Middlesboro are unprocessed that's asylum seekers? that's not how immigration works.

The referendum had been and gone and the result was clear. I don't see the point in hypotheticals now. You can't have another election because the loudest people say it's the wrong decision.

Yes Close this Thread

or put it on Chat and Games

Or don't post in it if you're not interested in it? ^

:clap1:

The point of a hypothetical is to open up abstract debate. Not really important that you personally don't see the point.

The original question, just to add, was what would you say if there was significant and irrefutable evidence that the vast majority of people had changed their opinion... Not the "loudest".

I'm also not saying that that has or is likely to happen.

The result is clear as to the overall vote, no doubt about that,although even Boris Johnson is now saying it is not an overwhelming result.

What is a fact also and which should not just be discounted by some with a more negative attitude towards other citizens across in the UK, is the fact that 2 of the 4 UK Nations wanted to remain in the EU, and by a good bit stronger majority than the 2 that voted to leave.

England in the main,can dismiss and ignore those votes if it wishes but it should not end up complaining and regretting, should it end up not even having a United Kingdom at the end of such arrogance.

You know that's right the vote maybe should have been counted based on the representative electorate in each country within the UK?

x2

Apparently Nicola asked for the results to be treated separately by country as the referendum was being formulated and Dave told her not to be stupid :laugh:

How rude, what an unpleasant person he is.

She wanted a majority of 60 per cent I bet he wished he listened

I am sure he does too.

After all we have heard a lot about no democracy in the EU, yet when it comes down to the issue of a new Nation joining the EU, all the member Nations have to support it.
Malta with a tiny population has the same status as a member, as to that issue, as the big guns, Germany ad France, despite their populations being massively larger it is still one vote for all.
ALL 'have' to agree.


Yet here in the UK we call democracy where 2 UK supposed equal Nations who voted to remain and with the bigger percentage of population voting majorities, have their votes and status dismissed by the 2 who voted to leave with much smaller percentage of population voting majorities.

I know which one I prefer to see.
All the Nations of the UK should have had to agree to this exit from the EU, not just 2 of them.

theyre part of the uk end of.....when the tories gets voted into westminster the scots and welsh always vote for labour or snp but the population is in england so thats end of chat