Erm, over a million more voted leave, that's significant, just as +1 or +10,000,000 would have been in a democracy
Agreed, but the point I was trying to make is that out of all those millions of voters, no one voted to “Half Leave”.
Or is it half remain? Mathematically the vote was pretty much half. 1M is not statistically significant it’s only 4% and this is why we are in a mess: the people in power are so concerned about upsetting one side or the other and losing votes that they found a middle ground no one wanted and upset everyone. Edited for shit maths lol
A 1.25m majority is pretty significant when it’s a simple majority vote required in the referendum. They could have required 2/3 majority or some other formula, but didn’t. You can’t change the rules after the event.
I’m not changing rules, not agreeing or disagreeing with the outcome just saying it’s not that statistically significant. And tbh i just want 1 way or the other now. Leave or decide to remain. It’s the uncertainty that is far more disruptive. If there is another vote I would vote remain again because i have no faith in the elected and non elected elite providing any leadership or negotiating better trade deals, which was my reasoning 1st time round, confirmed by the last 2 years debacle, despite the theoretical benefits of leaving.
NO! More than 1/2 voted leave.... that's why we are leaving.... its how it works... or at least supposed to.
I'm still trying to find out why almost every voting event we had taken part in before worked on the exact same system and yet we had none of this nonsense attached afterwards, before.
Previously. voting has only ever been about who calls themselves "the UK Government". The Establishment doesn't much mind who the Public believes to be in charge, so there has never been a need to undermine the result of a ballot. This is because - Labour, Tories, who cares - whichever one wins, the same people run the country. Brexit was a different matter. It sets the programme back by decades if the UK successfully leaves the EU so the straightforward solution to that is - There can be no Brexit. What's freaked the Establishment out is the fact they didn't anticipate a large chunk of the population who cares enough about leaving the EU that they are prepared to make a bit of a fuss. If you think this explanation is outlandish, you have clearly not been paying any real attention to what happened in the USA in 2016 and what has been happening since. There, the Establishment is fighting a battle it never dreamed it would be in, let alone one that it shows all the signs of losing.
No I don't think it's outlandish and I do understand the elites wish to keep the cushtee set up they have for them and their multinational buddies, it's the voters that are odd. We have a system that can elect an mp (and has) by just 2 votes difference, we all understand how our voting system is, how it works and yet everyone who votes are okay with it enough to take part and vote in it. Then you had brexit and all the shit hit the fan by the losers but yet since then we have had a general election, local elections and the euro elections and none of the same nonsense of brexit with those following elections by the people same people, weird
It's not the losers (Remainers) that are creating the real problems with Brexit. They are shouty but they are not blocking it. I mean, they did a big march or two, they took over every MSM TV channel news programme and, most tellingly, created the all-conquering #FBPE hashtag, which sucks the life out of two out of every three Twitter threads ... but it is the elected and unelected individuals that comprise the Government that have made the Brexit vote fallout a unique occurrence in UK political history.
Elections in the UK are usually legally binding. The result of a General Election is what it is, everyone accepts it, and those who did not win this time set about trying to win more votes next time. The 2016 referendum was entirely different. It was advisory. This means it was never legally binding; essentially it was a big public opinion poll. But after the event, some folk have tried both to treat it retrospectively as if it was binding, and to prevent there ever being another one. That's what is "weird" about all this "nonsense".
You are of course ignoring the pre-Ref promise of the UK PM to honour the result, and the manifesto promises of the Conservative and Labour parties in the 2017 GE that the result would be honoured. By all means though, filter the facts and ignore data, to suit whatever it is that is your goal here. This is the problem with "experts" - microscopic views of macroscopic issues. Pfft.
I see that argument Pete but can I ask, if it was not going to be acted on, why did the 48% vote? to remain and despite saying it was only a advisory referendum, those same remainers seem to keep ignoring the huge amount of government and prime minister speeches where they said it would be acted upon , one example (from 03.45)
At which point its worth reminding people that neither party came out of the election with a majority. Therefore they did not have carte blanche to carry out their manifesto.
