[JTM45]

Agreed Mock.

Because Cameron (in the same way May did with her recent botched General Election debacle) had people so convinced and complacent in their assumption that a 'Remain' result was a foregone conclusion the Press did indeed massively neglect to properly clarify the reasons why staying in the EU was soimportant for the UK and just how detrimental Leaving the EU would be for us.

If there is one sentence that explains the referendum result it’s this one (from the website of the Advertising Standards Agency). ''For reasons of freedom of speech, we do not have remit over non-broadcast ads where the purpose of the ad is to persuade voters in a local, national or international electoral referendum''. In other words, political advertising is exempt from the regulation that would otherwise bar false claims and outrageous promises. You can’t claim that a herbal diet drink will make customers thinner, but you can (falsely) claim that £350m a week will go to the NHS instead of the European Union with the knowledge that by the time this claim is exposed as an utter and total LIE it will have already served its purpose and that nobody can be held accountable for knowingly lying.

It was noticeable how quickly the twin planks of the Leave campaign – extra money for the health service, and the implicit promise to cut immigration by ''taking back control'' of our borders – fell apart. On Good Morning Britain just hours after the result was declared, Nigel Farage decried the NHS pledge as a ''mistake'' . Devastatingly, for our Country and its future, it's a ''mistake'' with almost unimaginably massive negative implications for the future of the UK.

I still believe that an issue as massively important as leaving or staying in the EU with Nation destroying implications should have had at least two seperate vote no less than 6 months apart (preferably a year apart)to get a better informed result and i cannot see why anyone who truly wanted the best for our Country would want it any other way.

The result was so relatively narrow that i believe that had even something as simple as the debunking of the 'facts/lies' that were spread by UKIP happened before the vote (which were clearly fraudulent in their use) we would have had a different result. Even if two votes had ended up with a 'Leave' result at least there wouldn't be any doubt then about the legitimacy of the result.

If this all goes ahead (as it appears it will) when the full damage starts to become glaringly apparent it'll be far too late to do anything about it. It'll be our oldest and most needy people who'll probably suffer first and all of those shouters who are so vocal about Leaving the EU now will become apparent by their sudden silence as they slope back off into the shadows shrugging their shoulders and looking for a new ''Left'' excuse to blame for their mess.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by JTM45

Agreed Mock.

Because Cameron (in the same way May did with her recent botched General Election debacle) had people so convinced and complacent in their assumption that a 'Remain' result was a foregone conclusion the Press did indeed massively neglect to properly clarify the reasons why staying in the EU was soimportant for the UK and just how detrimental Leaving the EU would be for us.

If there is one sentence that explains the referendum result it’s this one (from the website of the Advertising Standards Agency). ''For reasons of freedom of speech, we do not have remit over non-broadcast ads where the purpose of the ad is to persuade voters in a local, national or international electoral referendum''. In other words, political advertising is exempt from the regulation that would otherwise bar false claims and outrageous promises. You can’t claim that a herbal diet drink will make customers thinner, but you can (falsely) claim that £350m a week will go to the NHS instead of the European Union with the knowledge that by the time this claim is exposed as an utter and total LIE it will have already served its purpose and that nobody can be held accountable for knowingly lying.

It was noticeable how quickly the twin planks of the Leave campaign – extra money for the health service, and the implicit promise to cut immigration by ''taking back control'' of our borders – fell apart. On Good Morning Britain just hours after the result was declared, Nigel Farage decried the NHS pledge as a ''mistake'' . Devastatingly, for our Country and its future, it's a ''mistake'' with almost unimaginably massive negative implications for the future of the UK.

I still believe that an issue as massively important as leaving or staying in the EU with Nation destroying implications should have had at least two seperate vote no less than 6 months apart (preferably a year apart)to get a better informed result and i cannot see why anyone who truly wanted the best for our Country would want it any other way.

The result was so relatively narrow that i believe that had even something as simple as the debunking of the 'facts/lies' that were spread by UKIP happened before the vote (which were clearly fraudulent in their use) we would have had a different result. Even if two votes had ended up with a 'Leave' result at least there wouldn't be any doubt then about the legitimacy of the result.

If this all goes ahead (as it appears it will) when the full damage starts to become glaringly apparent it'll be far too late to do anything about it. It'll be our oldest and most needy people who'll probably suffer first and all of those shouters who are so vocal about Leaving the EU now will become apparent by their sudden silence as they slope back off into the shadows shrugging their shoulders and looking for a new ''Left'' excuse to blame for their mess.

And many rightly believe that the indigenous people of a country should have a substantial say in the large scale change of the demographics of their country and culture - the country is in a mess as a result. The damage done is irriversible and will change the future for everyone and long-term will do much more damage than Brexit ever could. People have a right to their say - they had a say and some didn't like it so shout about it as if their opinions are more important than the majority who voted.

Having multiple votes until you get the 'right' vote would be an abuse of democracy and a dictatorship. It would be downright corruption. That would be a catastrophic mess and an absolute disaster for democracy.

[JTM45]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And many rightly believe that the indigenous people of a country should have a substantial say in the large scale change of the demographics of their country and culture - the country is in a mess as a result. The damage done is irriverisible and will change the future of everyone. People have a right to their say - they had a say and some didn't like it so shout about it as if their opinions are more important than the majority who voted.

Having multiple votes until you get the 'right' vote would be an abuse of democracy and a dictatorship. It would be downright corruption. That would be a catastrophic mess and an absolute disaster for democracy.

Not a CLUE!!!!!

So you think a single vote in which people have been influenced by massive Lies (which Farage and many others ADMITTED were not true withing hours of the result) is true Democracy while two votes taking place with a settling period in between which would clearly give a far more balanced, informed and transparent result equals a ''dictatorship'' ?

You'd probably be happier living in Russia under Putin. A dictatorship thinly disguised as a democracy. Clearly better suited to your 'values'.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by JTM45

Not a CLUE!!!!!

So you think a single vote in which people have been influenced by massive Lies (which Farage and many others ADMITTED were not true withing hours of the result) is true Democracy while two votes taking place with a settling period in between which would clearly give a far more balanced, informed and transparent result equals a ''dictatorship'' ?

You'd probably be happier living in Russia under Putin. A dictatorship thinly disguised as a democracy. Clearly better suited to your 'values'.

It's the left that are the dictatorship here telling everyone how to feel and how to think - a definite case of a dictatorship thinly disguised as a democracy. You are a good case in point - anyone who expresses a different opinion is likened to Putin. Weak and sad. Basically playground namecalling.

[the truth]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

It's the left that are the dictatorship here telling everyone how to feel and how to think - a definite case of a dictatorship thinly disguised as a democracy. You are a good case in point - anyone who expresses a different opinion is likened to Putin. Weak and sad. Basically playground namecalling.

101% correct I see you are no stranger to the truth, take a bow sir,

[Withano]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

And many rightly believe that the indigenous people of a country should have a substantial say in the large scale change of the demographics of their country and culture.

Can you expand on this? Most specifically the word 'indigenous'. Who does, and who doesnt have the right to a say in your opinion?