I know you were not seeking to convince anybody. However I would have been happy if somebody who supported brexit could tell me what good it does us. Sovereignty is still sovereignty when pooled - we chose to pool it in joining the EEC. You go to war to preserve your way of life. We pool our sovereignty in many other pacts and institutions - do you favour pulling out of everything that shares our sovereignty -or only the EU? Do you think may people came from the EU and did not benefit the UK? The jobs they are doing are of immense benefit I would suggest. It is only those who think they are benefits cheats because they read the Daily Mail and other trash who think we have been invaded by scroungers. £8 billion is a minute amount in terms of UK budgets. If we choose to pay into several European cultural, scientific,educational and cultural programmes from outside the EU I suspect that will account for a fair proportion of that. Anyway we lost far more than £8 billion due to currency devaluation. Are you really arguing it was worth leaving the EU just to save less than £8 billion. What if your economic argument is wrong and the so called experts are right - not impossible - then how do you justify saving £8 billion and losing multiple times that. Worse - all that was done on uncosted promises and with no plan for how brexit would be worked out.
Clear but narrow and flawed. If a referendum was such a good way to choose our future why do you not support another when the terms of brexit are known - to ensure that the people actually want what has been negotiated. Do brexiters fear that they only won by mistake and misrepresentation?
Despite your inference I think you would struggle to find many brexiteers who would not agree that many EU migrants have contributed greatly towards the UK. I would also say most Daily Mail readers would disagree with your comments regarding benefit cheats. There are benefit cheats, scroungers and thieves amongst the migrants as there is in the whole population. My economic view is only part of my list of reasons to leave. £8 billion, and rising, pays an awful lot of bills. Any loss on currency can, and will be reversed, I've seen it all before. There is also a risk in staying in the EU. Our exports are steadily diminishing to the EU as it continues to suffer from poor, or non existent growth. The response from other countries regarding potential UK trade deals, especially from the US, has been extremely encouraging. I now feel more confident than ever. Hopefully tomorrow's Supreme Court announcement is just a damp squid, I could setting myself up for a fall!!!
1,250,000 votes difference is fairy clear. Anyway under the rules the result is perfectly clear, the UK government is determined to follow the will of the people. Brexit means Brexit.
Clear to fairies it may be, but what multiple of that number didn't even vote? And the "rules" of the vote were that it had no legal binding.
You could also say 'couldn't even vote', despite being very much affected by the result. Like all the 16-18 year olds, who will have to live with the result for longer than anyone else. Like the millions of disenfranchised ex pats, who are also affected by the enforced change in their legal status. Altogether, more than enough to change that result.
I would imagine that people that failed to vote realised that there abstention meant they had not registered a preference. The government accepted that the outcome was binding, that is all that matters.
The response from other countries is naturally very great. The USA desparately needs a 'dumping' ground, to balance out its trade imbalance. You would substitute the EU. with a trade agreement with a president who doesn't believe in free trade - wonderfull logic.
We've nearly reached 2,600 Leo ! The only advantage I can really think up for Brexit is for the EU. itself. Ok. they have lost a reluctant 'payer in' but........the balance of the European Parliament will also change, namely to the left. Maybe now, with the British votes in Brussels gone, Germany will feel more isolated (unless Germany also moves to the left), which means that the Conservative block will be less able to enforce its austerity regime on Southern Europe. Maybe now we can push through a real investment package for the region (like Germany and the Marshall plan) using Euro Bonds.
'Losing money' = good when you give the rich tax cuts, because it somehow improves the economy. 'Losing money' = bad when it comes to the EU, even though it's actually been proven to vastly benefit the economy. Right wing logic always baffles me PS: that failed Trident test the Tories lied about cost £17M, and we have plenty of money to waste on renewing it. Same with giving more to the Queen, or paying to do up the Houses of Parliament. Let's not even mention bombing Syria...
This 'will of the people' phrase that keeps getting churned out is incorrect. It is not the will of the people. Apply the same logic in the US... The will of the people was that HC should be president. M re people voted for her. It is a non-sequitur based on fallacious logic. Just like the sort of tripe just about every American president puts out at some time or other: America is the Land of the free America is the greatest country in the world etc etc Just incorrect soundbites used to disabuse. off out for a good local Sardinian meal ....
"The will of the people" can be correctly applied to the referendum because the rules as defined by parliament decreed the majority would decide, which they duly did.
I see they have wheeled out AC Grayling to challenged the 'will of the people' over the referendum. In desperation the remainers are trying to add the abstainers, too young to vote, disqualified ex pats, Tom Cobley and all to their share of the vote to gain a mythical majority. Maybe the Supreme Court can save them tomorrow?
Then if Parliament decided that a second referendum was necessary because of a) changed circumstances or b) significant changes in the electorate ( a few Brexiters popping off, and others coming of age) or c) because they believed that in such an important case as this a second opinion was necessary or d) The last referendum was invalid because Colognehornet wasn't allowed to vote in it, although his legal position could be changed by it. Then in that case it would be just as democratic to have a second referendum as the first one was. If at the time of actual leaving (ie. in 2 years time) there were a majority in favour of staying it would be undemocratic to force the issue on the basis of a referendum taken 3 years earlier. Parliament is sovereign in the UK.
People who abstain get what they deserve. But how do you justify Brits living abroad who were not given the vote. How do you justify not giving the vote to 16 to 18 year olds? Do not say that it is because in General Elections they do not have the vote - this was not a GE. For the Scottish referendum they were given the vote - so why the change? For something that affected their entire future and not just the next five years how can you justify the failure to follow the previous referendum's rules? Your clear result as I said before was clear because we could see it but it was narrow and by denying a number of people the right to vote it was not fair. That could be corrected by having a second referendum after the terms of exit are known. You must welcome the chance to reinforce the excellent job you feel TM will have her team negotiate. Let me pose a little teaser. If negotiations end up with a Norway deal - still in the single market, still paying into Europe, Still subject to a European Court and still with unrestricted movement of people - would you be content? According to you the people would have got their way brexit and return of sovereignty.
