[user104658]

It's a lofty and admittedly admirable goal Kirk, and genuinely, you do put so much passion into the way you state it that I know you mean it, but I just do think that we're going to (quickly) find out that the likes of BawrisJawsson and Gove have very different ideas and that so far things are very much going their way, rather than "the people's". The only blip has been them prematurely losing their main "fall guy" in Cameron but I have no doubt they'll root out another.

[jennyjuniper]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

This is a complete hypothetical, as I said, just a casual wondering, really...

IF significant numbers of polls over the next few months (and by significant I mean dozens, and every poll going one way) showed a large amount of regret over the result - for example, every single poll now showing 65%+ support for NOT implementing article 50 and remaining in the EU... What would your position be?

Would you accept that public opinion had shifted significantly and say we should just stay?

Would you think that we need a second vote?

... Or would you still want the government to forge ahead with Brexit based on Thursday's result?

Which best represents a true and fair democracy?

In Denmark, which is supposed to be a democracy, the public were asked to vote whether or not to become part of the EU. There was a resounding NO. So the government had another referendum and they kept on having them until they reached the magic 51%. So I suppose my answer is that people can be swayed to the 'other side' or just give in out of sheer exasperation.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

In Denmark, which is supposed to be a democracy, the public were asked to vote whether or not to become part of the EU. There was a resounding NO. So the government had another referendum and they kept on having them until they reached the magic 51%. So I suppose my answer is that people can be swayed to the 'other side' or just give in out of sheer exasperation.

For it

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jennyjuniper

In Denmark, which is supposed to be a democracy, the public were asked to vote whether or not to become part of the EU. There was a resounding NO. So the government had another referendum and they kept on having them until they reached the magic 51%. So I suppose my answer is that people can be swayed to the 'other side' or just give in out of sheer exasperation.

That is really interesting.

I think another referendum here on this would be likely absurd,however in light of the type of misinformed campaign, and now seeing the after effects following the vote, it could be interesting to see what another came up with as to the result.

Voting in hindsight, rather than in the dark may not be that bad a thing.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That is really interesting.

I think another referendum here on this would be likely absurd,however in light of the type of misinformed campaign, and now seeing the after effects following the vote, it could be interesting to see what another came up with as to the result.

Voting in hindsight, rather than in the dark may not be that bad a thing.

Ireland went to a second referendum only few years back..it's not unheard of

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Ireland went to a second referendum only few years back..it's not unheard of

As to the euro.

It could be legitimately done and this vote was really close too, if no one can agree on the way forward,who knows Cherie.

[Kizzy]

Scotland may veto it and force one.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Scotland may veto it and force one.

they can't actually veto. They can withold consent, but it doesn't equate to the same thing as their consent is not required to action it.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

they can't actually veto. They can withold consent, but it doesn't equate to the same thing as their consent is not required to action it.

You sure?

Nicola Sturgeon has appeared to suggest the Scottish Parliament could effectively block the UK’s exit from the European Union.

It comes after Scotland voted by 62 per cent to Remain in the European Union while Britain, as a whole, voted by 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7104046.html

[bots]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

You sure?

Nicola Sturgeon has appeared to suggest the Scottish Parliament could effectively block the UK’s exit from the European Union.

It comes after Scotland voted by 62 per cent to Remain in the European Union while Britain, as a whole, voted by 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave Europe.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7104046.html

yes, i'm sure

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

yes, i'm sure

Is there any logic behind your comment then as it appears the Scottish first minister thinks differently? Or are you not listening because she's an expert, I know some people have just had enough of experts.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

yes, i'm sure

Yes, and you are right to be sure BOTS.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Scotland may veto it and force one.

For sure Kizzy, Nicola Sturgeon is not going to leave any stone unturned in order to find a way if she can to veto this, or influence Westminster MPs to vote it down.

She is formidable and not to be underestimated.

[joeysteele]

She seems fairly sure there is something she has come across that can possibly be used in the devolved powers bills to Scotland as to constitutional issues.

No doubt she will have a good and strong legal team looking more deeply into that possibility.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its up to individuals to get off their arses and research not rely on busses and what is written in them

If you would rathert watch GOT or play lotto than Google 'what is the EU'


Then FU

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its up to individuals to get off their arses and research not rely on busses and what is written in them

If you would rathert watch GOT or play lotto than Google 'what is the EU'


Then FU

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.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

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.

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.

[Kizzy]

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

[joeysteele]

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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 conditions 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 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

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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

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.

[jaxie]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

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.

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.

[bots]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by jaxie

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.

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..

[Livia]

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.