million people demand new brexit referendum

[hetrodoxly]

When it's 18 million i'll take note, brexiteers have not yet had a reason to march if we don't get a good deal we still leave.

[stevewinn]

21 minutes ago, hetrodoxly said:

When it's 18 million i'll take note, brexiteers have not yet had a reason to march if we don't get a good deal we still leave.

exactly, 16 million short and 2 years to late.

So now the remainers who we've established are anti-democratic now want the Govt to listen to 1% on a march compared to the 99% who voted in the referendum.

[acute]

2 hours ago, Captain Risky said:

consider that Farage could only muster a couple of hundred pensioners. 

.....and they spent most of the 'march' in the pub! 

Edited March 24, 2019 by acute

[stevewinn]

55 minutes ago, acute said:

.....and they spent most of the 'march' in the pub! 

excellent, traditional English pastime. you didn't expect true British patriots not to sample the local beer, this walking 270 odd miles is thirsty work you know, its not your mickey mouse 15 minute route march in central London.

[+ouija ouija]

4 hours ago, Helen of Annoy said:

 

Also, it wasn't much less than 17+ million who voted remain too. Why are they not important?  

Because they are the minority. It's no good complaining after the event that 'the margin is so small it means nothing'. That should have been decided before the vote took place ..... 'the majority has to be such-and-such at least, or the vote is null and void'. Point is, the remainers, in their arrogance, assumed they would win by a country mile and therefore weren't concerned about details.      

[Helen of Annoy]

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

Because they are the minority. It's no good complaining after the event that 'the margin is so small it means nothing'. That should have been decided before the vote took place ..... 'the majority has to be such-and-such at least, or the vote is null and void'. Point is, the remainers, in their arrogance, assumed they would win by a country mile and therefore weren't concerned about details.      

The margin was too small to disqualify the opinion of either 'side' as not worthy of any consideration. 

In other words, no matter what option was few percent more or less popular on that particular day, it was - obviously - not really a good idea to disregard roughly half the population. 

In my opinion, which is truly an opinion of a foreigner, but the same scenario can happen in my country too, after such tight margin you had to have more of debating, informing, thinking and calculating out loud. Forcing Brexit was neither fair nor wise.   

[Setton]

9 hours ago, likwidlite said:

Even if all of those factors proved legitimate and this was 1 million registered voters, 1 million people in the street is not 17+ million official legally binding votes. 

The Leave campaign mustered precisely 0 legally binding votes because the referendum was in no way binding. 

Parliament has a responsibility to represent the best interests of their constituents, not pandering to a small majority. That's why we were able to do things like expand the vote. 

3 hours ago, ouija ouija said:

Because they are the minority. It's no good complaining after the event that 'the margin is so small it means nothing'. That should have been decided before the vote took place ..... 'the majority has to be such-and-such at least, or the vote is null and void'. Point is, the remainers, in their arrogance, assumed they would win by a country mile and therefore weren't concerned about details.      

The size of the majority absolutely matters because the referendum was advisory. If it had been binding, it wouldn't matter. But instead we have MPs being expected to act against their constituents' interests for the sake of a few hundred thousand votes difference. Basically, they have the choice of harming the country to satisfy at most 52% or not harming the country and satisfying 48%. If Leave had 90% of the vote, they'd have a point. 

[stevewinn]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

The Leave campaign mustered precisely 0 legally binding votes because the referendum was in no way binding. 

Parliament has a responsibility to represent the best interests of their constituents, not pandering to a small majority. That's why we were able to do things like expand the vote. 

The size of the majority absolutely matters because the referendum was advisory. If it had been binding, it wouldn't matter. But instead we have MPs being expected to act against their constituents' interests for the sake of a few hundred thousand votes difference. Basically, they have the choice of harming the country to satisfy at most 52% or not harming the country and satisfying 48%. If Leave had 90% of the vote, they'd have a point. 

you'll use any excuse not to accept the vote. now you put your own figure on what's acceptable.

unfortunately for you the referendum was exactly the same as every other referendum carried out in the UK beit the 1975 EEC membership, the Scottish Independence one, or even the referendum on the Welsh assembly where the winning margin was 50.3% 49.7% and in all cases the result was accepted and respected. But now you think this one should be ignored not on some legal grounds or illegality No, but all based on what you want because you want it to be ignored. nothing more nothing less. To hell with the democratic principles as long as you get what you want. by hook or crook. - added all together you simply don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

[Setton]

34 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

you'll use any excuse not to accept the vote. now you put your own figure on what's acceptable.

unfortunately for you the referendum was exactly the same as every other referendum carried out in the UK beit the 1975 EEC membership, the Scottish Independence one, or even the referendum on the Welsh assembly where the winning margin was 50.3% 49.7% and in all cases the result was accepted and respected. But now you think this one should be ignored not on some legal grounds or illegality No, but all based on what you want because you want it to be ignored. nothing more nothing less. To hell with the democratic principles as long as you get what you want. by hook or crook. - added all together you simply don't get it.

 

 

 

 

 

Still not wanting it to be ignored but you keep making up what I think if you find that easier to argue against. 

[stevewinn]

25 minutes ago, Setton said:

Still not wanting it to be ignored but you keep making up what I think if you find that easier to argue against. 

your fooling no one, you want the referendum to be overturned, making it the first such vote to be overturned in parliamentary History. like i posted above examples of other referenda, all on the same principles of the Brexit one, no problem whatsoever implementing them in full. you have no argument why we should accept them and not this one.

 

 

[Setton]

29 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

your fooling no one, you want the referendum to be overturned, 

Like I said, please keep making that up if you find it easier. 

[stevewinn]

18 minutes ago, Setton said:

Like I said, please keep making that up if you find it easier. 

shame, you had all the answers before. but a little to tricky to answer now. oh well.

[Setton]

4 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

shame, you had all the answers before. but a little to tricky to answer now. oh well.

Not especially, just no point explaining anything to you when you're just going to make up the other side of the conversation for yourself. 

[stevewinn]

7 minutes ago, Setton said:

Not especially, just no point explaining anything to you when you're just going to make up the other side of the conversation for yourself. 

Evasion once again noted. 

[Setton]

35 minutes ago, stevewinn said:

Evasion once again noted. 

Sure, sure. Enjoy talking to yourself. 

[Unusual Tournament]

On 3/24/2019 at 3:25 PM, and then said:

Sounds like a globalist paid effort for a do-over.  Thwarting the will of the majority can either beat them down or strengthen their resolve.  I hope it's the latter.  Centralized power over the masses with little or no representation is an age-old recipe for tyranny.  

the will of the majority is not a one way street mate. democracy doesn't just end when one group get the result they want. besides if the people really want to leave then a second referendum is the only way to prove so. 

[Unusual Tournament]

12 hours ago, stevewinn said:

your fooling no one, you want the referendum to be overturned, making it the first such vote to be overturned in parliamentary History. like i posted above examples of other referenda, all on the same principles of the Brexit one, no problem whatsoever implementing them in full. you have no argument why we should accept them and not this one.

...if hard brexit is the will of the people then another referendum shouldn't scare you. 

[itsnotoutthere]

On 24/03/2019 at 8:10 AM, Captain Risky said:

oh not you too... the Brit's have had 3 years to make it work and they can't. no one is stopping them from leaving. Brexit just doesn't work because the alternative is an economic and political backstop. nothing stops Britain from joining Germany and France and dominating Europe. this tyranny you speak of has nothing to do with the UK.  

But everything to do with germany and france.