[jaxie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

I agree.
I also as someone who voted remain, felt that any margin under 10% even had it been for remain would not have closed this issue down.

I think any major change has to be really voted for,you have to look at how things are won and lost.
Margaret Thatcher who always said referenda was a failure of govt. and that she would never have one.
Rejected the Scottish devolution referendum result put in place by the then Labour govt of 1979 despite there being a narrow vote for devolution.

In 1975 the EEC referendum again held by Labour, produced a clear result, near 67% voting yes and all 4 UK Nations voting yes too.

A lot gets said about ignoring those who don't vote, well that's fine but they are never likely going to vote if they keep being totally ignored.
That being so, the vote held was not a majority of the total electorate.

However the govt, as MTVN said I think a few times in the EU debate, should have put locks on the vote, that there had to be at least 60% either way for it to be acted on or something like that.
All the time we hear the referendum was advisory not binding.
Of course the concerns need to be dealt with but 3.8% is really a small win.
We hear loads about 17 million people voting to leave totally discounting the near almost equal high of 16 million voting the other way.

I still cannot fathom out why after so much delay already from Theresa May on this, throwing it into next year from July this year at least.
Why anyone who voted has any fear of a democratic parliamentary vote by MPs on the whole process.
The call for 'our' parliament to make decisions, not the EU, was strong in the EU campaign, now however they want even our own elected MPs to be denied votes on the issue all through, why?

MPs only voted to support and hold a referendum nothing more,if they had to vote to hold the referendum, they should certainly be voting all through the process of leaving too.

Why so scared and aggressive as to any other voting on this issue, if the leave side really does believe it still has the support for leaving from voters.
The added side of this too is that 2 Nations voted to remain,now if the UK had 4 Nations with roughly the same electorate in each, from the way the UK voted in June there would have been a majority to remain.
Still in single figures, this 3.8% margin for leave was only won by the strength of larger numbers of electorate in England.

Take the average of the percentages of voting in the 4 Nations however, 56/44% to remain in Northern Ireland, 62/38% to remain in Scotland, then 52.5/47.5% to leave in Wales,(surprisingly, and I feel pretty sure that would be overturned now),finally 53/47% to leave in England.
So if England had not the vastly greater numbers of electorate and was more on a par as to voters,the vote would have been to remain.
That some lock was not put in place to heed the view of the whole UK as to its 4 Nations was badly planned.

Really after England voted, the other 3 may not as well have bothered as they had no chance at all of influencing or changing the result from how England voted.
Hardly a move that would unite anyone.

Which is why I agree 3.8% should not be enough to bring about this massive change to the whole of the UK,just as I would not have thought a 3.8% vote to remain would have settled and closed the issue either.

There as been some talk of Margaret Thatcher here n this thread and really a PM as strong as her would have been better now.
Not as to many of her policies.
She would have insisted on locks being in place for this referendum, and if she had this 3.8% result, she would said simple, not enough, I am pretty sure with her view of referenda.
UKIP or no UKIP, I doubt she would have ever entertained a referendum on anything however.

UKIP were the ones who really won getting this referendum, no one else,
David Cameron promised a referendum,stressing only if he got an overall majority, he never believed he would have to hold one as no polling suggested any party was going to come near an overall majority,even right up to election day 2015.
Labour never wanted one and only came on board under Harriett Harman's acting leadership.

However finally to UKIP, a 3.8% vote to remain would not have in any way, as Farage said on the results night,satisfied them and with Nigel Farage, the fight would have gone on and on.
In my view he would have been right in that too.

I also myself think the mood of voters is now more likely to be for remain,I don't know that for sure obviously,it may well have strengthened the other way for leave but I fear no other voting at all on this issue, whether it's the voters via a general election, a referendum to accept the final deal, or elected MPs in parliament.

Whether voters or MPs are thinking like me or not, I support votes all through this process and this govt. held to account all the way.
No intricate details obviously but the broad plan, which actually voters should have been told 'properly' during the EU campaign anyway.

It's not hard to fathom at all. There is no 'fear' about parliament debating it, it just simply isn't necessary. Parliament had a vote for a referendum and it was a clear referendum with clear choices. A leave vote means we would leave, to leave we have to start the process of article 50, everyone knew that so what's to talk about? We have two choices really. We can leave without any deals and look for deals away from the EU with countries that want deals with us like Australia which is bigger than the EU and UK altogether as a land mass. Or we can negotiate to see if they want to do a trade deal with us and let us remain in the single market. They trade with us more than we do with them so that might be in their interest. It obvious that the government will try to get as much of a deal as the EU is willing to give, which also isn't really much to debate. What we don't know is what concessions the government will be willing to give I'm return. Those concessions once discussed are about the only thing the government might have to talk about with the rest of the UK and there isn't much point unless they are of interest to the EU after some talks. Then the government can come back to us and say if you want this, they want to allow this. Then we can talk.

I have even seen it suggested in an interview by someone involved in the writing of article 50 that you don't even have to do that. He said make no further payments, don't go to meetings and the EU would realise eventually you were gone! Going by what he said we may not even be bound to trigger article 50 to leave at all. He seemed to be suggesting it was more of a courtesy. Not sure how accurate that is but an interesting idea.

I think it's wishful thinking to suggest people wouldn't vote leave again. I think more people would vote leave if the will of the people was ignored from the first vote.