It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
The result was not legally binding but morally and politically it cannot just be ignored. So, a bit more than just an opinion poll. The country was asked to make a choice and it did.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
You speak for the Country, when it has already spoken?
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Yes, 'cos we already got one.
originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Three years have passed and we were supposed to leave on 29th March. The people's wishes have been overridden by the Westminster corrupt cabal. Which you seem perfectly OK about.
So, if we have another vote and we vote to stay I trust that you will be perfectly OK in agreeing to another vote three years later to see if the majority still want to remain?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Not in UK law.
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Not in UK law.
David Cameron the PM at the time called the referendum.......
Two choices *leave* or *remain*
At NO time was it ever said then or since that the result would not
be legal or a poll or simply an opinion of the people.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
It was always to judge if the majority of people wanted to leave the EU. If that is no longer the case then there is no moral or legal obligation for us to do so.
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: ScepticScot
It was always to judge if the majority of people wanted to leave the EU. If that is no longer the case then there is no moral or legal obligation for us to do so.
And why would they want to judge IF? The people were clear in that they DID
There were much cheaper ways to find out IF people wanted to leave the EU than
the just under £30 million it cost to hold the referendum.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
What do you think a better way of judging if people want to leave would be?
originally posted by: 83Liberty
originally posted by: ScepticScot
What do you think a better way of judging if people want to leave would be?
Well it's pretty simple, we must properly leave (as we voted for) then the political parties can campaign for joining the EU and put it in their manifesto's if they want, but none of them will, as they know they'll get hardly any votes.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
As stated multiple times 3 years have passed.
I think you 30 million figure is low but If so that's about half a day of what the leave campaign claimed the EU cost. Hardly a significant barrier to another referendum.
What do you think a better way of judging if people want to leave would be?
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: ScepticScot
As stated multiple times 3 years have passed.
Yes three bloody years.......and nothing has been done to fulfil the
will of the majority of people who could be bothered to vote!!!
an analogy.......
If you moved into a house with a bare earth garden and your other half
said they wanted it completely hard landscaped. After months ordering
collecting and getting the workforce, they change their mind. They now
want lawns beds flowers pergola's etc., so you now have to get rid of the
hard landscaping and reorder. Then just as you are set to start the flower
garden its all stop again your o/h has decided they now want a large
conservatory instead........
When one flip flops and cannot make up their minds nothing ever gets
accomplished and its costly
I think you 30 million figure is low but If so that's about half a day of what the leave campaign claimed the EU cost. Hardly a significant barrier to another referendum.
You being a Scot I would have thought you would have been well aware of
*many a mickle makes a muckle?*
What do you think a better way of judging if people want to leave would be?
They were asked in a referendum and they gave an answer.....
However those who didn't agree with the result of that consider them stupid
and incapable and are undermining the carrying out of that result. If that
result is not carried out first.......
What exactly was the referendum about What are elections for? We have
a system and if it is not adhered to, whats the point of a system
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Not sure how you get the idea that no one would vote for a party that campaigns to remain.
If a majority still want to leave we should leave, if not we shouldn't. The idea that must leave because of a vote 3 years ago is fundamentally undemocratic.
originally posted by: eletheia
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Not sure how you get the idea that no one would vote for a party that campaigns to remain.
Do you never ask yourself why Cameron got spooked by the rise of
Ukip party and why the support for the new Brexit party is so high
so quickly?
Major hint they were for leave NOT remain!!
If a majority still want to leave we should leave, if not we shouldn't. The idea that must leave because of a vote 3 years ago is fundamentally undemocratic.
What is really undemocratic is that we are not out YET!!!!!
originally posted by: ScepticScot
Cameron offered referendum to keep his own parties Euro sceptics in line.
Remind me again how many seats at Westminster UKIP have ever won?