wtf is wrong with you lot on here quoting anyone makes no difference who it is. i was just making the point THAT IF VOTING MADE ANY DIFFERENCE WE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED ONE, as for mass immigration just watch and listen to this interview with a french man, he makes some very valid points about how mass immigration is not just economically unsustainable but also unsustainable from a enviromental point as well. food supply and enviromental damage will become far more of a issue in years to come, even the far left have awoken to the obvious

 

If you quote a right wing extremist, you are likely to quote right wing propaganda. Clearly voting does make a difference, otherwise there would only ever be one government - you know, like in those right wing extremist States where the same guy somehow always wins every election with 90 odd %.

If voting didn't count, remain would have won by a clear majority. If voting didn't count, Theresa May would have increased her majority in the last election rather than being left with a hung parliament

In Oswald Mosley's world, voting doesn't count, in a democratic world, voting does count. The problem is, you fail to accept the validity of the 48% of the voters who voted against Brexit. A hard Brexit is not what the public as a whole democratically voted for! In a democracy, all goes have to count, which means you have to proportionally listen to the losers as well as the winners.

 

this woman explains perfectly why i voted brexit PLEASE WATCH AND LISTEN BEFORE COMMENTING especialy the little rant in the eu meeting about handing over soverenty

 

Oh my God, seriously? I've heard it all now, the EU was the master plan of the ****'s and is a fascist mechanism to create the Germanization of Europe. Funny how she forgets that famous **** fascist Winston Churchill's United States of Europe speech. Funny how she forgets the **** pursuit of the Asian race.

You seriously need to take your tin hat off and think about how bat **** crazy some of the **** you post is!

 

So you linked a video to some random woman in her garage or whatever talking about her views. Obviously she is a specialist speaker on the EU leave dilemma

 

The little rant, as you put it approx 2:55, if anyone wants to skip to it), is just one guy's opinion out of 751 elected members in total of the European Parliament. He was participating in a debate, not making an announcement on what the EU had just decided to do for the next 20 years.

 

Why should the losers views be heard? I don't agree.
Lets take another similar voting example but on a much smaller scale, a courtroom for instance.
Lets imagine a jury voted to convict a murderer by 52% with 48% against. Does that mean he's only slightly guilty? What if it was in a country with the death penalty, do you just execute him a bit?

 

posting on the internet with a skinfull is never a good idea

 

Why do you think they should be disregarded? My city voted 62% remain, my ward 86% remain. Similar story in many other cities. Do you really expect us to quietly go away, when we believe it's our present and our children's future at stake? This isn't democracy, it's mob rule, and I'll bet the mob has thinned out considerably in the last 2 years.

 

So what if it had been the other way round, would you still feel the same if the brexiteers were demanding their say? Its not mob rule, its majority rule.
Its the exact same scenario here in Scotland. Nicola the Fish says Scotland didn't vote for brexit. However what she fails to consider is that Scotland was not voting autonomously, but as part of the UK as a whole. Its the same with your city/ward.
The majority have spoken. Its happening, so we just need to deal with whatever comes, bad or good.
Would you say the country should have referendum after referendum until we get the correct answer? Does that not make a mockery of democracy?

 

It's not a court room though and the vote holds no legal weight...that's just the point. Your example has zero value.

 

The polls show a clear majority in favour of remain, and this is why the Leavers fear a second referendum so much. They talk about it being a betrayal, or stealing Brexit, but in reality, it would be giving the people what they want (or if it did turn out to be an increased majority for Leave, so be it), but blocking it is anti democratic.

We've had general elections less than this far apart, was that undemocratic?

The country is divided anyway, may as well be divided but economically sound

 

The question you have to ask is what did the 52% vote for and how would they vote if they had more information on the triggers to vote leave...

 

The question was to stay or leave the EU. Very clear unambiguous question. We leave 29th March '19. Whether there is a deal or not is immaterial. The UK will leave completely on that date

 

That's not what I asked though...it's far easier to be obtuse than attempt to answer questions which undermine the validity the referendum result

 

Certainly, if the result was that close.

I haven't suggested another referendum. Just pointing out that you have to take remainer's views into account, since the result was so close and therefore inconclusive. The majority spoke in my city, and in Scotland and NI, why should these majorities be ignored? It's a mockery of democracy right now. Government by referendum should be outlawed. We have Parliament to make decisions like this, based on constituency views.

 

In a court, quite often a unanimous decision from the jury is required for a safe conviction. If not, the judge will consider he split of the jury when sentencing. So really, yes you can be only slightly guilty and get a more lenient sentence.

In a general election, the strength of the opposition determines the ability for a government to pass legislation with or without amendments. Its a principle of our democracy that the losing side still has to be heard and the the amount they are heard is directly related to the split of the votes. To completely ignore the remain vote is in itself undemocratic which is why the remain supporters are now fighting back.

Most remainers would accept the referendum result of the deal took into account the closeness of the vote and proportionally considered both sides. In such a decisive subject, is clear no deal can be reached without compromise. The country is split and the remain side have been ignored, the country cannot be united unless both sides are taken into consideration.

 

 

Which number is bigger, 48 or 52?

I'll give you a clue its the number beginning with 5.

How daft can people get, 1%, 1000votes or 1 vote is greater than the losing side

 

The time for 'sides' should have finished 2 years ago.

All that matters now is a decent route through all this.

 

So yes, as near as dammit 50/50. You dwell on the tiny percentage difference, yet ignore the enormity of the fact that half the population disagrees with the other half regarding the future of the UK. That's a pretty big deal, and for anyone to suggest that only one half should have a say is, at best, naive.

 

The remainers try to dismiss it, but for them it was pitched as a once in a lifetime decision, no going back, in our out.

The UK voted out.

Whats that saying, 'Suck it up'

Remainers lost and should accept it so. But as we can see many are trying to thwart the process and stop the UK leaving, There lays the problem

 

 

 

You may see it as remainers thwarting the process, but it's actually reality biting. The issue of the EU/UK border in Ireland was raised repeatedly in the run up to the vote, and was dismissed out of hand by leavers as 'project fear', and no one ever came up with a solution. Still haven't. There lies the problem - no plans, no tangible vision of what comes next, no clue. Divided cabinet, divided parties, divided parliament, divided country, and you think that the tiny percentage difference in votes is a slam dunk mandate. If remainers views are to be dismissed out of hand because they "lost", these divisions will never be resolved.

 

It may of passed you by, but its not a big deal at all, the Irish arent going to put up a border, even in the event of No deal. The EU arent planning on a border. It was a huge ruse to trap the UK in a lock to the EU.

The issue will melt away if the UK can leave with no deal.

 

 

So tell me how it's going to work, if it's all a ruse. If you want remainers to 'get behind' this reckless project, you'll have to come up with a few workable real life solutions to convince them.

 

They will continue pretty much as they do now. Goods will be checked away from the border. The Irish will do nothing to jeopardize the free movement of goods across the UK to Europe, which isnt that great considering the UK is Ireland's biggest market