"You cannot betray the six million people"

MaizieD
If they were true why is nothing being done?
Its like listening to the the Midwich cuckoos..repeat after me
It was a fraudulent referendum
We didnt know what we were voting for
We were lied to
It is only advisory

Isnt it time to accept that you were lied to none of this has enough proof to overturn the result, you must be so tired of the repetition.

The reason that referendum has not been declared null and void is because it was only advisory. If it had been mandatory it would have been nullified.

MaizieD
My point is:
Why hasn't the 400 odd remainer MPs got the referendum legally declared null and void because of fraud or whatever, it would have been an easier way to overthrow the result. As I said to Nonnie, maybe there are bigger worms lurking in the remain camp that would be revealed if they tried fraud as a reason to halt the referendum. If it was a viable proposition they could have started proceedings as soon as the result was declared saving all this grief...fishy!

Clear and helpful Maizie

Perhaps not falling over themselves

But they could have had the courage of their convictions and voted against it, as did the 89.

Do you know I watched question time last night and I had to turn it off because a woman on there was repeating exactly the same mantra as all remainers on here:
It was a fraudulent referendum
We were lied to
It is only advisory etc.etc.

Problem is, Joelsnan, all those statements are true.

In the main, they were falling over themselves to vote to trigger Article 50 and set the process of leaving the EU in motion.

They didn't exactly fall over themselves. The government had to be taken to court to allow Parliament to permit May to invoke A50 i order to assert Parliamentary sovereignty. Yes, they did vote to let her invoke it but at the time the revelations about the illegal overspending weren't known.

The Electoral Commission say that they used criminal law standards of proof before imposing the largest fine possible on the Vote Leave campaign, and, they referred it to the police for investigation (result, as yet, unknown). We also know that May actually blocked investigation into the source of Bank's £8 million donation (the biggest political donation ever, apparently) but he is now also being investigated by the police.

Leavers tried to 'get' the Remain campaigns but the Electoral Comission found no evidence of wrongdoing, apart from one campaign being fined for a minor overspend.
There is also the question of the use of Cambridge Analytica to target people on social media by means of improperly obtained personal data.

May herself knows that the referendum was corrupted. Her Counsel said so in court.

I realise that large numbers of Leavers voted in good faith but with huge question marks over the subversion of the democratic process it makes the result very unsafe.

May I just clarify that when I wrote "I've heard plenty about not allowing brown people in, straight bananas, EU non-elected, EU leader drinks too much etc but none of those persuades me that we would be better off out." For the avoidance of any misunderstanding I was not referring to anyone who had written on this thread. I don't generally attack people unless severely provoked!

Nonnie
Yes I have heard of Aaron Banks and all of the other claims that could have called a halt if there had been enough viable evidence. You cant suggest that the remain MPs didnt choose to pursue when all they have wanted is to overturn the result what an ideal gift that would have been.
The only thing I wonder is: if all these claims are actually true, then maybe there may be a bigger can of worms under the remainers chair that they fear will be opened if they tried to use their allegations to overthrow the result.

Don't you think that if there was a viable shred of evidence the 600 and something remain MPs would have used any of these accusations at the outset to claim foul play and have the referendum legally declared null and void...simples, so why didnt they do it?

MPs have backed the government's plan to trigger Article 50 by the end of March by 461 votes to 89
In the main, they were falling over themselves to vote to trigger Article 50 and set the process of leaving the EU in motion.

More Labour MPs defied the whip and Jeremy Corbyn:
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had imposed a three-line whip - the strongest sanction at his disposal - on his MPs to back the bill.
The SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats opposed the bill, while 47 Labour MPs and Tory ex-chancellor Ken Clarke rebelled.

It was all done in such a strange way. Cameron posturing, no information, confusing terminology. It's utter madness and I really fear for the future.

in our democracy the majority of those who voted, voted leave. The supposed 6 million is irrelevant. the 17.4 million are the majority, Easy to comprehend.

We the majority voted Leave and so leave it will be.

The minority can not and will will not rule over the majority.

Leave won.

Joelsnan there is plenty of evidence but, as I said above, they decided to ignore it because the referendum was advisory. They said that if the referendum had legal standing then it would have been treated differently.

Have you not heard about Aaron Banks case?

I disagree that it is as if hypnotised, people keep saying it because they believe it, quite natural. Some of us believe the often quoted 'All it takes for evil to prosper is for good men to do nothing' and consequentially try to do something.

I don't turn anything off because I don't like the message, I am still open to persuasion that my view is wrong but I have yet to hear the rational reasons for leaving. I've heard plenty about not allowing brown people in, straight bananas, EU non-elected, EU leader drinks too much etc but none of those persuades me that we would be better off out. I've also seen too many pathetic comments like 'You lost, get over it', 'we are going out too bad' and some using language I'm not prepared to use. I can't help it if the BBC want to fill the news with people who want to leave but clearly have no understanding of the consequences. It would help me if they would interview leavers with rational arguments so I could listen and be converted.

Nonnie
Do you know I watched question time last night and I had to turn it off because a woman on there was repeating exactly the same mantra as all remainers on here:
It was a fraudulent referendum
We were lied to
It is only advisory etc.etc.
We now know more
Its as though part of our society has been hyponotised by some subversive entity because has been repeated time and time and time again by every disappointed remainer.
Don't you think that if there was a viable shred of evidence the 600 and something remain MPs would have used any of these accusations at the outset to claim foul play and have the referendum legally declared null and void...simples, so why didnt they do it?

smileless Joelsnan* Thank you both for responding, no one else has done that in all the months I have been asking the question.

I don't think there is any dispute that there was electoral fraud which, alone, should make the vote null and void but hasn't because the referendum was 'advisory'. In addition to that I do know people who believed many of the lies told by the Leave campaign and for that I partly blame the complacent Remain team. The BBC should also answer some questions because even today they went to a very Leave area and only interviewed people who showed they really didn't understand what Leave meant. They always seem to go and ask people in lower skilled jobs for their opinion and I think there should be more balanced reporting.

Whether a vote on the actual offer is 'right' or not I think it is the only way to solve the impasse. MPs are clearly not able to do it so it seems the only option apart from no deal which we are told almost no one wants. Hopefully if we do have one there will be a much bigger majority one way or another. Unfortunately I think a lot of people have taken entrenched views and are not open to have been possibly mistaken in 2016.

If Remainers had won they would have wanted the decision to stand.

Strange, eh?

Quite why we should all be bound by a ramshackle, ill informed, corrupt shambles of a vote taken three years ago defeats me

Isn't it strange?
We all knew the referendum as on the cards. During the run up it was a contest between two sides and most people I know thought long and hard about our position in the EU and voted accordingly. We had plenty of time to decide which way to go and much as Remainers like to wail "Blame the Bus" most of us had a good idea about our feelings for Brussels and the EU.

There were no - "STOP! WE CANNOT HAVE A REFERENDUM" groups then, were there?

However, AFTER the result. the process and outcome was torn apart by remainers - because they lost.

We knew long before the referendum in 2016 the result would be honoured by all parties. (Huh - we are still waiting.)

Strangely after the event, according to those who lost, we have all been bamboozled and it should never have happened.

Millions and millions are glad it did. You cannot get away from that fact.

'You have to remember one thing about the will of the people, not so long ago we were swept away by the macarena' and other similar thoughts - www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/democracy

Quite why we should all be bound by a ramshackle, ill informed, corrupt shambles of a vote taken three years ago defeats me. There was a recent Irish Times article pointing out that the UK could learn from recent Irish referendums which showed how they formed a basis for discussion and openness to change, including rerunning them.

Yes, but democracy doesn't just mean first past the post, plus, there is a major review of constituency areas under way with the intention to create 600 areas of roughly equal size by population thus reducing the number of MPs from 650.

Report here boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/2018-review/

So even representative democracy changes and part of the change is the consideration of whether there will be winners and losers amongst the political parties (answer yes), discussion here: fullfact.org/law/constituency-boundary-change-proposals/

Most dismiss populism as a bad smell

What is populism? Who dismisses it? Is it the same as snoberry?

What a truly desperate situation.

Maggiemaybe I have many friends who voted to remain, but like you, they think the result should be respected and they don't march or sign petitions.

The middle class elite are the very reason for the uprising of populism - something all left wingers should respect. (Most dismiss populism as a bad smell.) The people on the street are not being heard, their lives don't matter - they are expected to put up and shut up and accept their 'betters' know what is best for them,

No more. We fought for equality and the right to be heard. Throughout Europe and EU member states there is serious unrest. Macron HAD to listen to the people (in yellow vests) when they protested in France. Europeans tend not to roll over and die when they feel aggrieved.

When the British stood up to be counted (at a referendum) people who voted differently were horrified and wanted to push the 17.4 million back down. How dare they! They are still trying to do it and have succeeded in stalling Brexit.

It is worth mentioning that many academics and professionals are amongst that Leave number. You hear very little from them as they have the sense not to feed the indignant Remainers when they demand to know "Why?"

Lack of acceptance in the face of loss is (in a democracy) peevish arrogance.

I voted to remain, was surprised that "my side" lost, but accept that we did and that the outcome of the democratic vote should be respected. I am vehemently opposed to another referendum. If there were one I'd break the habit of a lifetime and not turn out to vote.

A democracy is not a democracy if it refuses to accept the will of the majority and does everything it can think of to subvert it

Spot on Smileless.

After general elections do we have a recount because the other party, the one we didn't vote for, form the government? No, no matter how small their majority/number of seats.

The trouble is, the lack of acceptance of the outcome of the referendum and wealthy people using their riches to try to overthrow the result - "because they know better".

This is the action of arrogant people with a dreadful sense of superiority and entitlement, who protest until they get their own way.

Joelsnan excellent post.

Nonnie

^Once again I will ask the same question that others have asked: Why are Leavers worried about a vote on the current facts? If so convinced that it is 'the will of the people' they should be asking for one.

No, I don't expect a reply, never had one before.^

I have responded to a similar post and will repeat to you.

The majority of Leavers have no issue with a second referendum dependant on the questions asked.
However the majority accept that we live in a democratic society. We were asked a question and told the government would enact the result. The government accepted what the legal majority decision was and good or bad at least the populous felt that for once they had been heard. The majority MPs voted for Article 50 to be invoked. A general election was held where both major parties had within their manifesto's a promise to uphold the referendum result, although a reduced majority the conservatives were re-elected.
Now considering all of this, if the shoe was on the other foot I am sure you and the remainers would also feel aggrieved. Imagine being told you could have an ice cream, be taken to the van, the cone is offered then snatched away saying no we've decided you cant have it. A simplified scenario I know but a betrayal of trust.
Democracy is a fragile gift, we have only to look to countries with dictators to see what can happen when the politicos think they are the only ones with foresight and intellect and the illiterati need putting back in their boxes..
There thats why.