Brexiteers blocked their ears

Nonnie, the electorate were lied to by the Leave campaign, particularly with the NHS slogan on the infamous bus. Most of our news media is right wing - eg daily newspapers except the guardian/observer and daily Mirror. I recognise that some people believe the BBC is biased to the right but I don't agree with that though I do believe that the BBC tv coverage of the news has deteriorated since 24 hour news became the norm.
I don't blame the BBC for people being hoodwinked by the slogan on the bus. Blame Boris and co for that but don't forget the Leave voters have some responsibility.

You sound personally insulted by Azie09's statement, Ally. What a strange reaction. I'm not sure she is obliged to explain it to you either. I certainly wouldn't respond to such a rude command.

Oligarchy : a small group of people having control of a country or organization

Sounds pretty accurate to me....

Yet another bad tempered thread from Remainers, it must be the heat!
More outrage, and anger coming thick and fast, think it may do everybody some good to have a pleasant Summer break.

Brexiteer is such a silly word and assumes that all people who voted leave are clones of each other and all made their choice for the same reasons. Ditto Remainers.

Thanks MaizieD, I laughed at Ally's post. The divisions the badly constructed and run referendum have created in this country are unforgiveable and now that there is so much information out there showing how much corruption and manipulation there was behind the campaigns, it's hard to believe that anyone still maintains a stance of innocent simplicity.
As regards the use of terms such as Remainer or Brexiter, in order to speak of a complex situation, the English language requires us to use shorthand terms that indicate a group preference one way or another, we'd be in trouble if we couldn't do this as those who try to use the red herring of claiming eg. 'we are all individuals' know only too well. It's lazy and silly thinking.
Not something you'll find the likes of Rees Mogg doing, he's all too good at protecting his own interests, as shown by this article about the setting up of an investment fund in Ireland by a financial business he just happens to have a 15% stake in.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/22/jacob-rees-mogg-second-irish-fund-scm

He's also chair of the European Research Group, a pressure group of hard right Tory MPs whose use of public money to fund the partisan research of the group is under scrutiny. I'll add the link to an article but don't let me stop anyone heading to the Express or Mail or Sun, I'm sure you'll find trustworthy journalism there (not) full of terms like Remainer/Brexiteer you love to refute. Sigh.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/06/jacob-rees-mogg-and-the-shadowy-group-of-tories-shaping-brexit

lemon, I don't think it's only Remainers who are irritated - the Leavers aren't delighted either.
I was/am a Remainer. I've not campaigned for a 2nd referendum, I accept the voting was tight but it was for Leave. I'd be much more at ease with Remain but I'm a democrat.
We do have a problem in that the Conservative right wing seem unable to compromise and determined to do for TM, who I believe is doing her flawed best to make Leave work. The loathsome Reece trog and equally loathsome Govester/Boris are back stabbing *astards aren't they. They seem more concerned about themselves and their egos than how we reach some workable deal that best suits the country and reflects the fact the vote was far from overwhelming.

I'm a LP voter who is uncertain what the LP line really is. I can follow Keir Starmer but whenever I hear any other LP politician speak, I find myself glazing over. Words Words and even more words without a clear, simple message that an ordinary voter like myself can follow.
Help - we're drowning here in the UK.

Lemon Yet another bad tempered thread from Remainers, I take issue with that statement. I can't seem many bad tempered people in this thread, just people saying what they think quite politely.

Unfortunately that has been the attitude of some leavers all along, name calling and distrust. Don't believe the experts, saying "project fear" rather than discussing the various arguments. You will often find that in an argument the person with the least case resorts to name calling because they don't have a good case for thier viewpoint.

I can understand remainers who say they are democrats and accept the vote to a certain extent but, if something is wrong, I won't just accept it, I will continue to strive for what I believe to be right.

In fairness also, the initial vote was advisory, not binding; surely it would be democratic to have a second referendum, hopefully with more information on both sides and appropriate rules on voter turnout and majority.

Does that mean in future that if in any referendum or vote it's a small majority, we keep voting until it's not? instead of moaning, just accept we are leaving and fight for the best deal for the country as it will be. To keep harping on like bad losers, is ridiculous.

No Luckylegs9, it does not mean that, it means exactly what it says on the tin. My comment is completely independent of voting choice, but to have a correct democratic basis for whichever the outcome. I find it barely conceivable that we are about to make a major change in British politics with nothing more than an advisoty vote.

Exactly humptydumpty. A small margin voted leave and as you say, the referendum isn't binding, its advisory.

I agree with Humpty and Iamwhen we voted we didn't know just what the effects of leaving would be. When we do it would be good to have another vote based on facts not wild imaginings.

Surely the lesson has been learned that in any future referendum there must be clear criteria.
I'd like to see the criteria discussed (with honesty and transparency) and agreed.
Then let's implement them in a binding referendum!

Just after the referendum, a group of people were interviewed and asked if for they regularly voted. They said no but wanted to vote leave . When asked if they would continue to vote in elections, they said no, not interested. Some may say that is freedom of choice. However, those people couldn't be bothered to take an interest on a regular basis, so why should they be allowed to have a vote on such an important issue?

Should voting be made compulsory with a vote for 'none of the above' added to the bottom of the list of candidates. We would then know what the electorate really feel and the actual percentage for and against particular candidates or parties.

Flump, that’s the problem with democracy, everyone gets a go.

Iam I agree with a lot of your post 19.34.24.
Nonnie I have seen no name calling from Leavers on this thread, but ’Brexshitters’ and ‘bigoted and brain dead’ aimed at Leave voters on here.....that is polite in your world?

IMHO the Brexit threads are getting worse and worse, and my suggestion to chill out this Summer is still a good one.

That the referendum was 'advisory' is yet another of the lies spread by 'Remainers' - it was no such thing and the form clearly stated that the government would abide by the result.

Beau from wikipaedia:

The European Union Referendum Act 2015 (c. 36) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that made legal provision for a non-binding referendum to be held in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Gibraltar, on whether it should remain a member state of the European Union or leave it.[

Except.......the public were assured that it would be binding, and both major political parties supported that stance.
So, although in theory it could have been advisory, in practice it was never going to be.

That may be the case, but legally it was not binding, and as said previously, a totally unsuitable foundation for major political change.

I am not judging the outcome, I simply feel it should be on a solid judicial foundation.

I respect democracy but don't believe it is democratic for a representative democracy such as ours to depend on referenda for major policy decisions. Public policy problems which are complex are generally decided after much political debate and challenge by our politicians, which at the very least helps to inform and correct glaring errors of fact and representation (and outright lies) such as occurred on both sides in the Brexit referendum. Our elected representatives are accountable for their decisions in the way in which the general public are not, and if we don't like it we can vote them out. I think our political system is far from perfect but it is better than many alternatives.

The bill passed in Parliament was for an advisory one and it was changed without any further vote to suddenly be binding.
Binding plebiscites normally have percentages of voters actually voting anda stated majority. Usually this is 75% turnout and a 60/40% split. None of these figures were obtained.

I have sensed a bit of a change in this part of Scotland in the past week which has seen our local Tory MP admit on radio and TV that he does not feel the need to support the wishes of a majority of his constituents who voted to remain, or the bulk of Scottish voters who wanted to remain (62%) because coming out of the EU is "the will of the British people".

He has no idea how badly that has gone down.

We were assured those 13 new Scottish Tories would fight for Scotland's interests at the heart of the Westminster power and someone today pointed out that they - and not the DUP - should currently be in the best position to argue their home country's case if they could just be bothered.

Now, I am hearing people who previously "just wanted to get on with Brexit" talk about independence as a better option...if only so we can hold our elected representatives more closely to account and get away from the Westminster infighting.

Donald Trump helped a lot too. A trade deal with him is the last thing we would need after his record at Menie.