The EU debate - Part III

I'm not sure that works very well in practice. In the 2012 general election the combined Tory/LibDem vote was about 60%. In 2012 the combined vote was about 45%. You might think that was a huge vote of no confidence in the Govt, a lot bigger than the Brexit majority. But the outcome was the Tories in a majority Govt on 36.9% of the vote. So 63% of us voted against them but they are still there. What do you suggest we do next time?

 

It was a joke aimed at May's Brexit means Brexit nonsense soundbite but I don't think anyone truly knew/knows what Brexit means.

 

It seems some voted against it with a similar level of knowledge too.

 

The voting system in this country is a joke.

 

Welcome to first pass the post voting.

You could do what they do in Italy (PR) and have a ****ed up system.

 

If we had that sort of control on the EU, the referendum outcome could have been different.

 

We could have free movement if we followed the example of France and Spain and made it less attractive to come here.

Given we currently trade, we currently meet their requirements and little else changes apart from our control, the EU are showing the vindictive nature that people find unattractive.

 

That's fair enough I suppose. If the House of Commons was much less heavily whipped then each MP could consult their constituents about each vote and we might have a more direct way of influencing.

 

Another euphemism! There is no post! A better description would be 'Winner takes all' but that sounds much less fair so doesn't get used.
Anyway is anyone going to explain how the 63% of us who don't support the Tories actually get rid of them

 

Surely that's the logical response to a vote like that?
Remain or random, unspecified choice made by an unelected Prime Minister?

 

Vote for another party.

 

There wasn't a serious "remain" option, as the EU would change as the vote would empower them. Remain was a leap into the dark.

 

People keep saying this, but it's utterly baseless. The leap into the dark was the other option, as you admitted earlier.

 

It's far from baseless. Have a look at the increase in the buildings and departments the EU have created with no mandate. It shows which way they want to head. The other elements bubbling in the background simply hint at it centralising more and more. It certainly would not have stayed the same.

 

Of course it wouldn't have stayed the same, as it never has. Nothing does.
The idea that it was going to turn into some UKIP/Express nightmare is baseless, though.
Even the people that want it to move in that direction admit that it won't.

 

History alone, never mind the other things bubbling show it's far from baseless.

 

Hmmm.

 

In what way?

 

In a bad way.

 

No, in what way history prove your point?