Well I would have preferred shorter video but I have watched it. For me he's over egging the pudding. Remember there's those who think they can and those who think they can't and they're both right. So you just need to find an expert who shares the Brexit view. BUT, this guy is just one of a Troica of experts the others being economists and politicians (perhaps politicians aren't experts). For an economists view point a good book to read is "Greekonomics" which basically describes how Greece fucked over their economy and the role the EU had in its demise and so called recovery. The author believes in project EU. However good the legal and economic experts argument is in favour of the EU its the politicians who overlook or ignore the rules that bollocks it up. Hence the problems in Greece Italy Spain Portugal and Ireland, and its the unmanaged unelected politicians that is the reason why the EU will fail. Greekonomics unintentionally gives in detail why its doomed. Now Brexit might have an economic dip but not by half as much as those wankers in banking that stuffed us good and proper so Brexit is still my prefered choice. Let's take back control! TB
I agree with @Topbox comment above also I had a look to see what I could find out about Prof. Michael Dougan, ok it's from wiki ; Dougan has provided both written and live expert testimony to the UK Parliament; submitting to the House of Commons' European Scrutiny Committee [6] and Foreign Affairs Select Committee,[7] as well as the House of Lords European Union Committee, amongst others.[8][9] He has also acted as an external advisor to UK Government departments on important EU legal developments, including discussions about the enactment of the European Union Act 2011, as well as the Review of the Balance of Competences Between the UK and the EU.[1] Additionally, he has acted as a fact checker for BBC News "Reality Check" service during the Brexit referendum. So my question is would he have been paid as an external advisor ? Does this mean he has a motive for wanting to stay in the EU ?
You could certianly answer on the first question, yes and on the second question, his whole employment is based around the relationship between the eu and the U.K. where there soon will not be one as it is now. Draw from that what you want. a point however, that this is all fluff. the vote is what we took place inand a clear direction was given. Most of the debates around what follows next has largely turned out to be remainers trying to over turn it with white noise that tries as hard as it can to say, we know you voted yes in a democratic vote, but we don't want it and here is why It again seeks to convince you that the vote holds no sense to them so it should not to us.
That's true, but also sounds like a guy who wants us to stay in the EU regardless of whether it's good for the country or not, can look at it both ways I suppose.
He sounds like a guy who only see's remain fin because that is all he wants, there is very little recognition of democracy and until brexit, the standard way we did things was okay, then that is all some remainers will see "how do i overturn a democratic majority vote"
it was using the exact same system of voting we have used for decades so as with all votes, the majority vote decides the decision
Bizarre isnt it that Remainers are placing more importance on the value of votes in a referendum that has not and may never happen than they do on those from 2016 .
I cannot recollect a campaign in my entire life were both sides told the truth 100% and even their best wishes when failed, they resigned after, can you?
The normal system of voting takes place every few years, so why is it undemocratic to apply the same principle of the electorate being able to change their minds here??
