Fraudulent referendum

Does Nigel Farage Tell Lies? Yes, Here's Five Of Them

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/seb-dance/nigel-farage-seb-dance_b_14591852.html

It's a bit out of date. He's told plenty more since then. I hope none of the leavers who think lies should never prosper will never vote for this liar or any party he is associated with.

Liars should never prosper but its OK for convicted and tagged MP Fiona Onasanya who repeatedly lied to the police to have the deciding vote on the no deal stitch up.

One of the issues that we see shouted - along side the god-like knowledge of what leave meant - is that of anything the leavers don't like is "undemocratic".

There is a much quoted saying that "democracy requires the consent of the loser". This is not the "agreement" but the consent. Sajid Javid uses this a lot but he seems not to understand it. When he says it he seems to infer that the loser MUST consent. So, for instance, the loser in a race for gold medals must consent to the person coming first being the winner, even if it is proved that they were on drugs. It obviously does not mean this.

Did the "winners", who appeared to be the leave vote, provide the circumstances with which the losers, who appeared to be the remain vote, could consent? I would say not. On a basic level I do not believe the basic tenor of speech, e.g., "we won, suck it up" was conducive to consent. I do not believe that the sense that enough accurate information was given was conducive to consent (and I think that would have applied whichever side "won") and I do not believe that there was enough trust in the money trail and the PR to be conducive to consent.

Whether or not it proves to be fraudulent it has done nothing for our democracy unless we learn from it very quickly.

Mrspn19479
With the exception of originally voting for not joining the EU and the fact that I will vote again, I hold the same views as your very succinct comment.

Whitewavemark2- Totally agree “liars should never prosper”..........So that’s both houses in Parliament “screwed”!!

I think that one of the truths is that the voter has consistently over estimated the governments capabilities. We thought, believed and were told that they were capable of producing a good Brexit on time.

The truth is that they are neither capable nor truthful about what could be achieved. They can be sure that the voter will never be so willing to believe what they say in future.
Liars should never prosper.

@nickcohen twitter

“Brexit is slowly but perceptibly producing the typically British reaction. “It’s too much trouble, and we can’t be arsed”

Having voted join, and then expierenced it, I looked long and hard at the gravy train and decided we could do better alone. I resent being tagged as mad bad and dangerous for having an informed opinion I'm not right wing racist or a bigot. I will never vote again. My grandmothers and mother would be furious that I'm abrogating my voting rights that they fought for but I cannot see how the democratic vote of 17.4 million for leave, the biggest vote ever in this country is being ignored by the London centric political elite who certainly have the arrogance to think that they know better. They will regret it.

Charlatans the lot of them. People in the U.K. deserve better than this.

WE are better than this.

Hi I voted leave and I am totally disappointed and disgusted every time more lies and discrepancies are revealed.

These people are not representative of me or my “leave vote”

No idea varian. Probably they do not click on links and do not listen to, or watch, evidence.

Perhaps they just do not want to know.

'Norway, Norway, Norway. Rich free and catch their own fish.'

A must see compilation if you wish to watch someone who has used the democratic right to change his mind.

Jura your links are evidence of the many lies of the leave campaigners. Why do the GN leavers still believe them? It's a mystery to me.

As for Farage now saying he never recommended a Norway/Switzerland type of deal- he is lying and lying some more. Again, does he think we have no memory, or ways to record what he says:

youtu.be/fNCwcTu9U6U

They keep saying that Brexit has always meant 'No Deal and WTO' - but this is NOT what they said throughout the campaign, is it. They deny it- but the proof is there for all to see. Here is just a small sample (sorry for sound):

www.facebook.com/theleftbible/videos/423062305125140/

GG54 what aspect of the previous post by varian prompted your comment of 17.21 that she had mainpulated figures? What she said was quite right; furthermore, just last week the Speaker used his casting vote to maintain the status quo, in accordance with practice.

Yes- what happened in the UK would have meant a re-run or cancelation due to clear and proven fraud. The Swiss Government provides a very comprehensive leaflet, before any such Referendum- where the pros and cons and consequences and legal /expert advice is provided. This is thoroughly scrutinised by expert groups to avoid bias or false information.

Switzerland, a country which knows something about referenda, has just nullified a referendum because of - wait for it - false information given by one of the participating groups
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47879777?fbclid=IwAR2GJ4pLH98rDKUs3-L5v4uc_xaXep3LPPzHSzKDw8pBpbvu3RazKv9sgWY

Im not sure why you are saying it was her vote that swung it, you could pick out any of the ayes and say it was "that person's vote", If she'd been replaced in a bye-election, whose to say her replacement wouldn't have vote in the same way?
Those with criminal records are allowed to vote btw.

One vote from a convicted tagged Labour MP decided the no deal senario, you couldn't make it up.

Some people just love to manipulate figures to reflect their fanatically held views.

A link- what do those slogans really mean? :

www.facebook.com/777832385/videos/10157345638012386/

Quite apart from the lies, cheating, foreign interference, overspending, covert use of social media and other illegalities, the 17.4 million who voted for brexit is only 37% of the electorate.

▪ Just 37% of the electorate were allowed to impose Brexit on Britain. And yet, only 37% of the members of UKIP, or the Labour or Tory parties, wouldn’t be sufficient to change their constitutions.

▪ Under UK law, just 37% of a trade union’s members wouldn’t be sufficient to call a strike.

▪ Just 37% of MPs wouldn’t be sufficient to call for an early general election (two-thirds of all MPs are required for that).

In democratic countries that hold referendums on important issues, a super majority would usually be required to effect major change. A result of 52%-48% wouldn’t cut it. Nor would only 37% of the electorate voting for change enable that change to take place.

The majority of voters either voted for Remain or didn’t vote. In most democratic countries that hold referendums, those who don’t vote do count – they count as a vote for the status quo. Otherwise it would mean a minority dictating the future of a country.

Grankind

Had the EU referendum been legally binding and voided because of the serious illegality of some of the Leave campaigns would you still be saying that to overturn the vote would be undemocratic?

Replies on this thread and on the latest Boris Johnson thread show a worrying degree of tolerance of cheating and lying...

You're right, it was rude, but tbh, people have said a lot worse on here, challenging and bullying other posters to the point of abuse, really awful! So this particular comment is fairly mild by comparison!!! but even so does merit an apology, hopefully!!?