I don't at all appreciate the direction your argument has been taking over a couple of posts. What you are trying to imply is that somehow those who don't like the EU for whatever reason (and there are some very good ones) are somehow allied to racists and bigots. It has nothing to do with that for the 17 million or so people who voted. If your view of the country is half of it is bigoted and secretly racist, maybe you should leave it? It's not even a line of argument worth pursuing So all racists voted to leave the EU. So what? Maybe Marxists vote for the Labour Party - it doesn't make it Marxist, or even sympathetic to Marxism, or crypto Marxist. Maybe we need a wider debate. What's so special about immigration from the EU? Why exclude the Middle East and Africa? Surely an open-doors policy should be in place so that anyone at all who wants to live in the UK should be allowed to do so. Not to allow this is racist, xenophobic and bigoted.
The members of Parliament are supposedly the people's representatives, not their minders, shepherds, tutors or guardians. If you bother to have a referendum, what is the point of not implementing what it decides? This is the difference between an elitist view of democracy where the politicos know best what is good for us, and a view, such as that held in Switzerland, where for good or ill the people decide their own fate. It comes as no surprise to me that those who were so in favour of the remote elites in the EU should take the view that the people are too stupid to have their opinion made policy.
I think it might be even higher for leave. All that scaremongering about financial meltdown in the markets that simply hasn't happened.......
Correct: a right wing single issue party that 52% of the population just voted in favour of their single issue. The tories won the last election with 37% of the vote.
The pound has lost a lot against all other currencies. The stock market will crash if anyone signs Article 50.
Jebus. The winning percentage in any election is the largest single fraction plus anyone who didn't bother to vote - ie, those who were content to let everyone else decide the issue for them. Wakey wakey kiddies. Stop wasting your time with that other meaningless interpretation :Bored::Locktopic:
It is true that there are different types of possible referendums: they can be legally binding or advisory. The type held in the UK on 23 June was an advisory one. Parliament could have passed an Act providing for Brexit with a clause providing that the Act would not come into effect until a majority (simple or qualified) had ratified it in a referendum. If that had been the position, the effect of the referendum would have been to make the Leave outcome legally binding. However all that is hypothetical, because Parliament actually made this referendum advisory, i.e. it provides an indication of public opinion which informs Parliament when Parliament decides what to do. It is a political question whether to implement it sooner or later, wholly or in part, or not at all. That is the question under discussion, as it no doubt will be for years to come. There's not much point complaining about the fact that that political question is being debated. Why was the referendum not made binding? Because that would first have required a majority in parliament to vote for Leave, which could never happen because Remainers hold a large majority in Parliament and always have done. You ask why bother to have a referendum. Good question. It provides an indication of public sentiment at the time, but what an advisory referendum can never do is resolve an issue. The matter to be decided continues to be in need of decision as before. Those in favour or against continue to argue their positions and try to find ways to achieve the outcome they want. So a referendum is a device, a contrivance, a piece of political theatre, a way of upsetting apple carts. What it is not is a way of reaching finality. Has that not always been perfectly clear throughout?
What are you talking about? As at today, the UK is still a member of the EU and the single market, and all the regulations, directives, payments, quotas, taxes, and everything else are still in place exactly as they were before. Nothing has changed and nothing is going to change for at least two years. When (or if) the UK leaves the EU and is left outside the single market, which might be in 2019 or so, that is when economic problems will start to bite - bigtime. How much are financial markets today influenced by risks of adverse political events some years in the future? Only to a limited extent. How much will they be affected if those risks turn into actualities? Catastrophically. So what you are saying is that because 10 days after the vote the catastrophe forecast for three years ahead hasn't happened yet - that means it was "scaremongering". Priceless!
Why do you continue to pull your statements from thin air? The stock market knows we're leaving and hasn't crashed, despite the predictions of the 'Experts' beforehand. If what was predicted before doesn't happen, merely move your statement along to the next milestone. What will you say once article 50 is signed and we trundle merrily along; I wonder? The pound has been too high for while. It's currently higher than it was2 years ago against the Euro, despite the inevitable shock this week.
My vote wasnt based on their single party view. In fact it had nothing to do with immigration, and certainly nothing to do with UKIP
An option that was available at the last general election but only one constituency chose to go down that route. UKIP are rightly seen as incapable of governing because they are a single issue pressure group.
I see we've progressed from leavers all being racists and bigots to child molesters and rapists. Well done team. Educated peolple are aften the most blinkered and unaccepting of any other opinion. Happy to be dim and have an open mind that is often changed by debate. No wonder our politics is so broken When can we move to Mars?
When (or if) the UK leaves the EU and is left outside the single market, which might be in 2019 or so, that is when economic problems will start to bite - bigtime. You have no proof of this whatsoever. All the 'Experts' that predicted meltdown in the event of a Leave vote are looking a bit foolish at the moment. So what you are saying is that because 10 days after the vote the catastrophe forecast for three years ahead hasn't happened yet - that means it was "scaremongering". Priceless! Wasn't George going to have an emergency budget to raise taxes, punish pensioners etc. immediatley after a 'Leave' vote? 10 days later and nothing, in fact his tune has changed somewhat. And you think he wasn't "scaremongering" beforehend - Priceless!
More like 90m strictly speaking, as the rest SHOULD go back into what it was doing anyway: supporting UK projects and subsidies until the model of funding can be changed.
