@ffox It was still a majority. Also I dont think it would have made any difference if it had been a large majority. The metro men would be still kicking up a fuss. It would have just meant more unintelligent people voted to leave!
Sorry, I don't get your point about metro men. Please explain.
Metrocentric men - city based people who think their vote is worth more than non-metro people ( they have never heard of one-man-one-vote democracy)
Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? We are in this mess because a tiny majority voted to leave. (I think things would have been OK if it was a big majority.)
So how come a law can be placed on statute book or this country taken to war on a majority of 1 MP vote in HoC but over a million brexit votes are a 'tiny majority' - Welsh devolution referendum only passed by 0.3% ( a few thousand votes) - but it still happened because 'result went the right way'...
11-07-2019 4:57 PM - edited 11-07-2019 5:00 PM
Yes, but why them in particular? What about metro woman? OK, the only place around here that voted remain was Cambridge City, perhaps because of the University which possibly contains brighter brains than most, but I don't think those brainy people would like to be described as metro men - they would even prefer geek or nerd.
Apologies for going OT, btw
I don't like our Council controlled by labour councillors but they are there because the majority of those who took the time to vote put them there.
I might not like our MP for this area but accept the decision he is there because he got more votes than any other candidate even though that vote was not a vote made by over 50% of those who live in the area, indeed it was by a very small % of those who live in the area.
For centuries, from Boardrooms to election of councillors and many other things it has always been accepted that the majority vote wins irrespective of the number who abstain.
If the vote to remain had been won then those wishing to leave may well have had a few grumbles and the odd protest but in a few weeks it would be forgotten.
If you try to change the rules because you do not get the result you want and get away with it then you are moving into a dangerous area, if this vote does not count why should any future vote count ?
Those wishing to remain were given ample time to present their case, we heard what you said and rejected it when we compared what we already knew about the EU and it's ever increasing mountain of rules and regulations which continually imposed changes to our lives whether we wanted them or not.
Those who want to remain insist parliment should have a final say, bit rich really as the same people are happy to let Brussels dictate to us on many matters with parliment having no say in it, or the country facing massive fines if we fail to implement EU directives.
Equally we can see what has been happening from current experience hence the reason why so many voted to leave !
When I said "cart before the horse" I was responding the above. Please explain why so many voted to leave more than 3 years ago because of what has been happening recently. Or perhaps you didn't intend it to come across that way?
Definition of current: of the present time
Let me rephrase that,' Based on what we have seen about the EU and some of the decisions it has made in recent times we have come to the conculsion we would be better to leave than remain'
Now before anyone gets on the bandwagon and 'demands' to know what those reasons are which have been spelt out by others as well as me let us not move off the question in hand and hear why a decision taken by over a majority of one million can be ignored and we do not want to hear it was not a majority of the population, as already pointed out in my earlier post many people are elected to posts with only a minority of those elegible to vote, voting for them.
Seems the Electoral Commission got its knickers in a twist:
He maintained that he was "completely innocent" of making false declarations in relation to a £675,315 donation from Vote Leave and accused the Electoral Commission of "bias" against Leave supporters.
Sometimes I think you couldn't make it up.
In the Russian capital protesters lined the streets to demand a fair vote.
In our own capital protesters lined the streets to demand a fair vote is ignored.
I see Andrew Marr interviewed the Irish deputy prime minister today and insisted that the backstop would not be changed and the backstop was imperitive to the agreement.
Later in the interview he said in th case of a no deal
Mr Coveney said checks would have to be carried out on the island of Ireland in the event of a no deal Brexit, but he said those checks would not be at the border.
He said: ”We have to protect relationships and peace on the island of Ireland, and we are not going to create a security risk by putting a border in place on the border, but we also have to make sure that there are verification mechanisms to ensure what the EU knows what is coming into its single market.
So why is the backstop so important to the deal when it is not needed for no deal