[Closed] Handy pasteable letter/email to your MP to vote against Brexit. 5 min job.

Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, not everyone is entitled to have that opinion taken seriously

Four legs good......

The UK joined for trading not for handing over sovereignty, and definitely not to be ruled over by unelected self-serving cretins. And still you fools bleat on about democracy after losing a democratic vote. If it wasn't so pathetic it would be funny.

Whilst everyone is entitled to an opinion, not everyone is entitled to have that opinion taken seriously
Four legs good.

I'm not sure of this, there is a degree of culpability to ignorance, i don't mean stupidity, i mean a reluctance or refusal to engage with the information available.

How about if they mistrust the information being provided? For example if the people providing the information have a stake in the outcome, or are outright biased by the nature of their employment or even just their own beliefs? If you think that there were many, or even any, [u]truly[/u] impartial representations of information out there in the referendum then you must be utterly hatstand.

Rather than being reluctant or refusing to engage with the information provided, I would suggest that a large proportion of the electorate very much engaged with it, and dismissed is credibility as they believed it to be biased, fear mongering, partial and aimed at manipulating their vote towards a desired outcome.

If you spend decades serving the public up with a bowl of shit and continually swear blind that its chocolate ice cream, then don't act surprised when at some point they finally cotton on and throw it back in your face.

charlie - your link is borked.
[url= https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978 ]yer tis[/url]

So, enfht, as above. What do you expect or imagine will happen now to improve our lives?

and to what extent do you think the likely leaders post-brexit will be less cretinous or self serving than the people to whom you refer?
Who are the people you call unelected?
Which 'rules' do you actually object to?

How about if they mistrust the information being provided? For example if the people providing the information have a stake in the outcome, or are outright biased by the nature of their employment or even just their own beliefs? If you think that there were many, or even any, truly impartial representations of information out there in the referendum then you must be utterly hatstand.

Rather than being reluctant or refusing to engage with the information provided, I would suggest that a large proportion of the electorate very much engaged with it, and dismissed is credibility as they believed it to be biased, fear mongering, partial and aimed at manipulating their vote towards a desired outcome.

this is where reasoning and rationalisation come in. of course there were no impartial sources, but that is why you have to make an informed decision form information and data from a number of sources

First thing you could educate people on is how to spot a biased newspaper article or media piece.

The UK joined for trading not for handing over sovereignty

It never handed over sovereignty. It handed over some power.

And you do that to get the benefits - we all do it, day in day out. Fact of life. It's like paying taxes - it's necessary.

First thing you could educate people on is how to spot a biased newspaper article or media piece.

Yes, the same way we analyse text in English Lit. or even when we decide whether or not something we read on the web is credible

enfht - Member
The UK joined for trading not for handing over sovereignty, and definitely not to be ruled over by unelected self-serving cretins.

of course there were no impartial sources, but that is why you have to make an informed decision form information and data from a number of sources

But you seem to dismiss the possibility that people did just that, based purely upon the fact that the majority came to a different conclusion to the one you did.

First thing you could educate people on is how to spot a biased newspaper article or media piece.

Next you could put completely impartial leaflets though their doors, telling them about the advantages and drawbacks...

It never handed over sovereignty. It handed over some power.

You could argue that it was never theirs to give in the first place

And the people just took it back 😈

Just started my letter by changing the MPs details ....

Dear Mr Pickles

😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

[i]And the people just took it back [/i]

Yeah, that just happened 🙄

And you do that to get the benefits - we all do it, day in day out. Fact of life. It's like paying [s]taxes[/s] tariffs.

Sauce for the goose...

Rather than being reluctant or refusing to engage with the information provided, I would suggest that a large proportion of the electorate very much engaged with it, and dismissed is credibility as they believed it to be biased, fear mongering, partial and aimed at manipulating their vote towards a desired outcome.

Hence why the [i]'we've had enough of experts'[/i] line was so damaging. It gave people permission to hold a position that was based on gut feel / fear / myths rather than trying to understand the more nuanced reality.

Equally, people are not rational - or - one person's view on what's rational is not the same as the other.

EU Pop Quiz
Sovereignty
How many countries has the UK invaded since joining the EU
How many prisoners did the UK specially rendition for the USA
How many times did the UK do stuff to hurt it's most vunerable citizens

But you seem to dismiss the possibility that people did just that, based purely upon the fact that the majority came to a different conclusion to the one you did.

Not at all, I did say that this applies to both sides. Bit let us not forget that organisations such as the UK statistics authority refuted some of the financial claims being made before the referendum. Particularly the NHS one, so impartial information was available.

and definitely not to be ruled over by unelected self-serving cretins.

No, you're quite right. There's no need to outsource that when [url= http://usvsth3m.com/post/lordy-lords ]we're so spectularly good at it ourselves[/url]:

[img] [/img]

Amused at the suggestion to contact a democratically elected representative. Asking them to overturn/ignore the result of a democratically voted referendum.

It would appear that the regressive lefties and those with their heads buried deep into the sand. Haven't given this brexit business too much thought.

Here's something to consider.

Brexit did us all a favour. If remain had been the result of the referendum. How do you think leave-sters would have voted at any opportunity in the future?

Thats right, the leave-sters may have felt inclined to vote even further to the right.

Do remainistas really want Nigel in No10?
I don't, which is why I hope parliament respects the vote result and gets on with the job.

Alternatively. If we're not going to respect the result of the vote.
Can we re-run last Saturday's lottery, because my numbers didn't come up and I'm due a jackpot win.
🙄

To add some flesh to the CharlieMungus post above where he says: 'Bit let us not forget that organisations such as the UK statistics authority refuted some of the financial claims being made before the referendum. Particularly the NHS one, so impartial information was available.'

...The Head of UK Statistics Authority rebukes Leave campaign for £350m per week claim (twice):

>> 21st April 2016 -

>>and 27th May 2016 - https://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/uk-statistics-authority-statement-on-the-use-of-official-statistics-on-contributions-to-the-european-union/
>>and widespread media coverage e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/27/uk-statistics-chief-vote-leave-350m-figure-misleading

They leave campaign repeated the message despite this. There should have been an independent mechanism that applied to all sides akin to advertising standards. BTW I accept there may have been similar cases on the remain side, which should have had similar treatment.

Without truth the system is deeply flawed.

[EDIT - with working links now]

You could argue that it was never theirs to give in the first place

You'd be wrong though.

People don't run the country, never have. They vote for a government to do it for them.

Can we re-run last Saturday's lottery, because my numbers didn't come up and I'm due a jackpot win.

If there was a referendum to nuke Russia and they voted yes, would you just shrug your shoulders, say 'that's democracy' and say your goodbyes?

Solo, what colour of unicorn is parliament supposed to be catching for you?

Hell yeah!

[img] [/img]

I can't remember a political issue where there was so much misinformation and failures to engage with the evidence. People I've spoken to seem to have voted for issues that were not on the agenda. What was seemingly on the agenda quickly became a false prospectus. Now, because of a sense of embarrassment or whatever, people (including a local Tory councillor I spoke to last night) are making light of the idea of negative growth and a 6-10 year recession.
The markets will not make light of that. Already on here you've got engineering and building workers talking of cancelled jobs and recruitment freezes, Philip Green is already putting up prices before the price tags have been changed, oil will be up (followed by gas and electricity), food up, unemployment up, etc etc. Living standards and wellbeing for most people: down. Opportunities for shock doctrine privatizations and hostile takeovers: many.

Quite right. We can't have hoi polloi having a say in anything.

We have our say at general elections: we elect people to make decisions on our behalf. That's how it works.

The referendum we've just had wasn't an act of democracy; it was an ill-conceived and poorly executed vanity project that badly backfired. It should never have happened.

Now we need our democratically-elected parliament to pull itself together, step up and have the balls to say that the populace was misled and the referendum result should not be acted upon.

Quite right. We can't have hoi polloi having a say in anything.

On the other hand, you would never ask your plumber how to rewire a space shuttle. Especially if presented with a manual full of inaccuracies and missing most of the pages.

I can't remember a political issue where there was so much misinformation and failures to engage with the evidence.

The Scottish Referendum was a close second - possibly a precursor.

#posttruthpolitics

And still no leavers here are offering any reasons to push the button, beyond that 52%/48% vote.

At the risk of sounding a bit (ok a lot) Hitlery..

Is there nothing we can do to reduce the impact of the ignorant and belligerent on society? I mean.. these ****ing idiots are actually breeding and raising children, it's not exactly good for evolution is it.. ?

We now have a fairly clear idea of where they are, and how many of them there are (about 52% of the turnout)

Obviously no-one's going ahead with Brexit cos it's daft, but could we not be prioritising the building of a giant cannon* to fire Brexit voters into space? Once that's done we can all have a good laugh, breath a collective sigh of relief and go back to living like normal civilised human beings

*if we get enough velocity they'll burn up as they exit the atmosphere which should provide us with a nice celebratory firework display

That "2% margin" equates to a majority. It really is a simple as that. Even the intellectuals on here should be able to get their heads around the basic maths. I'm pretty sure all the supposed Neanderthals that voted out can tell you that 51.9% is more than 48.1%
By all means write to your MP. If you have time you could also drop a note to EUFA asking them to reverse the result of the England v Iceland game because you didn't like that either.

see?

see what I mean?
What use is that pillock to the future of mankind?

Not only is his grasp of democracy really shit.. he can't even write an original joke ffs!!

...I hope parliament respects the vote result and gets on with the job.

Dunno, all options looking bleak at the moment

*how much backpedalling remainers would have done I dunno.

the basic maths

… are mere maths. And the referendum result advisory. It advises us that if you make people stupid through decades of poor education and Murdoch's press machine, then ask them a stupid question, you will get a stupid answer.

See Yunki's points above for detailed analysis of that 😉

A second ref does sound silly

We don't need a second referendum.

We didn't need the first one, either, but the results of that can legally be handled in parliament.

Perhaps we need a single-issue general election. But the political parties all seem too busy bitching at themselves, sadly.

Yunki has a point I think.

At some stage, someone needs to say "Actually, your opinion, based as it is on ignorance and prejudice, is not worth as much as you think it is".

Partly I blame the internet, for allowing ignorant people to proclaim as loudly as the educated.

And I would bet good money that at the inevitable general election, the right will still be banging the drum on immigration.

I think the challenge here is an educational one. There are many who do not see the relationship between what is taught at school and everyday life. This may well be largely due to what is taught in school. When mathematics can focus on the chances of pulling a red pencil from a pencil case, when you are not looking rather than say, the chances of catching and STI when you are 18. people will not see it as a real world subject which has any relevance to their lives and so lose it as an everyday tool. When people learn to critique books which are not the kind they read, but don't learn to apply that same criticality to a variety of media sources, it's because they have not seen that they are the same thing and are in fact interesting and useful instruments. Many numbers and percentages were thrown around in the run up to the referendum , but folks were not statistically or numerically literate enough to make sense of them, perhaps because they were not told in school that these were precisely the problems that mathematics would help them to understand. And that's just maths, the same goes for history / politics geography. This stuff is important, but we don't demonstrate that in schools

I'm pretty sure all the supposed Neanderthals that voted out can tell you that 51.9% is more than 48.1

Sure, but how many could tell me if that was a statistically significant difference or if inferential statistics would be appropriate in this case?

The govt could of course declare it undemocratic, like a 52:48 majority (on 72% turnout) for industrial action in the public sector would be.

Yes, if doctors or firemen voted for a strike by this margin, they would not be permitted to take any action.

"People will be protected from undemocratic industrial action as the Trade Union Bill receives Royal Assent today (4 May 2016) and becomes the Trade Union Act.

The government announced a series of modernising reforms last year (2015) to ensure strikes can only go ahead as a result of a clear and positive democratic mandate from union members: upholding the ability to strike while reducing disruption to millions of people."

We can't have a strike but we can, and must, **** the country into the middle of the last century? (ok, some hyperbole there perhaps)

Leaving would be undemocratic.

The vote to leave was won in the only way it could have been: a fractured, contradictory campaign, with disparate campaigners promising contradictory outcomes to different sections of society.

An exit from the EU cannot be implemented without the overwhelming majority of those who voted in the referendum not getting the outcomes they voted for.

Surely it is my democratic right to email my MP about something that concerns me, isn't it?

No harm in that, surely.

What are the Leavers getting so sweaty about, then?

overwhelming majority

Hardly 'overwhelming', let's be honest.

And a good chunk of them now seem to have changed their minds, or admitted they didn't know what they were doing in the first place.

Leaving would be undemocratic.

Some sort of recognition of all the doubt around the referendum among voters, and a chance at a second vote, would be more democratic than forcing through a doubtful result no matter what.

Hardly 'overwhelming', let's be honest.

There are 2 main choices for leave:

a) a Daniel Hannan style Leave, with an economically liberal, globally competitive outlook, and little to no overall change in immigration, possibly with a shift to fewer EU migrants and more from the rest of the world

b) a UKIP style Leave, with a substantial reduction in immigration, despite the substantial economic cost via negative impacts on productivity, services and available trade agreements.

When people were voting for leave, how many do you think were voting for a) and how many were voting for b)?

My "overwhelming majority" is all those who voted remain, plus all those who regret voting leave, plus all those in either a) or b) who won't get what they want because the 2 options are totally opposite.

At some stage, someone needs to say "Actually, your opinion, based as it is on ignorance and prejudice, is not worth as much as you think it is".

We're all ignorant and prejudiced to some extent, which is why we elect a government to try and take the most balanced and informed decisions as possible, for the best of their electorate.

Having said that, I'm conflicted - I was a strong Remainer, but I feel uncomfortable at the idea that the referendum result could be ignored by MP's.

Is it better in the long run to try and reverse the situation we're in (which won't be without cost - trust in government, for a start), or make the best of where we are now?

Where we are now, is a member of the EU, but with greatly diminished respect and influence.

Daniel Hannan

But because. He says it. In a clipped voice. People seem to think. He is very clever. But is actually. Delusional.

exposed by whom?

I was a strong Remainer, but I feel uncomfortable at the idea of the referendum result could be ignored by MP's.

I think there will be no ignoring it.

Supposing we go to general election and elect a party on the ticket of non-Article 50 invocation, that party will then be faced with addressing the referendum result in some way or another – just within a framework of relative economic stability. (Getting out of my depth here, TBH, to your point about all of us being ignorant to some extent.)

I don't really know how to fix the kicked hornets' nest, but I don't think we need to keep kicking it until we're stung to death just to prove some unknown point.

I think now is the time for someone to demonstrate great maturity and large bollocks, and tell us they plan to do what's best for the electorate even if that *appears* to go against what the electorate asked for.

Such a stance would give me more faith in parliament, not less.

By himself.

But because. He says it. In a clipped voice.

aka Gordon. Ramsay speech or. cassette. boy.

Once a, just to be clear, in did not ask my mp to block issue of a50 unequivocally. I asked him to block, if it is against the interests of the country to allow it to be issued.

If it goes to a vote then I believe that looking after the interests of the county is his duty, over and above caving in to a non binding, advisory referendum vote

I can perceive a scenario where we drag it out for so long, the public gets agitated, civil unrest, and it in fact IS in our best interests to issue A50, despite other consequences.

el_b - thanks. Copied, altered slightly and sent.

As said by others: I accept the vote and its outcome but I'm not prepared to sit back and do nothing after a campaign of misinformation after which the poorest and most needy are - yet again - in the firing line to get shafted first.

In case others want to copy and paste:

Dear my MP,

I am confident you will be receiving a lot of emails like this so I will keep it brief.

As I understand it, in order for the UK's exit from the EU to be triggered under Article 50, this must be done within our own constitutional requirements.

Citations:
https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/…/nick-barber-tom-hickman-…/
https://www.theguardian.com/…/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendu…

From these articles, it is clear that this is a case for constitutional law; i.e. parliament must authorise the Prime Minister to issue an Article 50 declaration by repealing the European Communities Act.

From the first citation, here are just a couple of valid reasons why parliament may decide not to authorise the issue of Article 50:

[i]"As some of the core claims made by the leave campaign unravel, Parliament might decide that the case for Brexit has not been made – or was gained under a false prospectus."
[/i]
[i]"Parliament could conclude that it would be contrary to the national interest to invoke Article 50 whilst it is in the dark about what the key essentials of the new relationship with the EU are going to be, and without knowing what terms the EU is going to offer."
[/i]
I believe that there are now many very obvious reasons emerging which suggest that the Brexit vote was obtained under false pretences, and why it would clearly not be in the national interest to trigger Brexit now, or at any time in the short- to mid-term. Therefore, if parliament does consider this to be a matter for the constitution, and votes on the issue I urge you to vote to keep the European Communities Act 1972 (i.e. not to repeal it) so that Article 50 may not be served and Brexit may not be triggered.

Would it be possible for you to assure me that you have taken these points on board and to confirm that you will not vote to trigger Brexit if you do not feel it is in the national interest, as is your duty as a Member of Parliament?

Thank you for your time and for your service.

PMJ
Sunniest Place in Britain, PO30

[quote=chum3 ]Having said that, I'm conflicted - I was a strong Remainer, but I feel uncomfortable at the idea that the referendum result could be ignored by MP's.

Putting it simply, it's the least worst result. Which is the same reason for the way I voted (several good non-ignorant arguments for Leave, but massively outweighed by the downsides - I'd have preferred not to have to "endorse" the EU even if Remain had won).

When democracy (tempted to use quotes, but it was real democracy) is based on ignorance and so many people have buyers remorse when they realise the real consequences it seems bizarre to stick with a decision based on such a small margin - a decent enough turnout, but not sufficient to result in 40% of the electorate voting in favour of major change.

Where we are now, is a member of the EU, but with greatly diminished respect and influence.

But all it takes is for a large segment of society to THINK that we are picking away at the fundamentals of democracy, then we could end up in a worse place...

"We tried to tell you, you ignored us. We won the referendum, you ignored the result. We'll MAKE you listen..." leading to civil unrest, extreme politics etc...

Whether this is actually a risk hinges on to what extent people feel they were mislead, or, having looked over the precipice, decide that actually they'd rather step back from the edge.

A man who is rapidly being exposed as having nothing to say.

Call it a Boris leave then, or a Theresa May leave. ALL of the Tories are saying the same thing.... they want access to the EU free market, but want to negotiate less immigration.

They always say it in that order as well.

not seen that, torsoial

He had the clearest most coherent vision of a life outside the EU. Even if it it didn't quite stack up, and underplayed some of the negative impacts, he was a lot more impressive than any of the other leave campaigners. Say what you like about how much that comparison's worth.

If people had voted for his vision, and were openly and honestly prepared to accept a significant economic hit in the short to medium term, and those voters got a majority, I would not be complaining about the result.

My "overwhelming majority" is all those who voted remain, plus all those who regret voting leave, plus all those in either a) or b) who won't get what they want because the 2 options are totally opposite.

Ah, I get it - I misunderstood your post entirely (got a cold on top of everything else).

Yes, strongly agree!

"We tried to tell you, you ignored us. We won the referendum, you ignored the result. We'll MAKE you listen..." leading to civil unrest, extreme politics etc...

This is going to happen anyway. The people who voted for significant drops in immigration aren't going to get it. As above Free trade agreement with Europe is first priority, we won't be able to get that without free movement.

Ignoring this result would be fine in my book due to the amount of mis-informaton pedalled by Boris's lot - people weren't voting on the actual issues they could do anything about and weren't told the consequences in a believable way (Corbyn at big fault here).

I think ignoring the result but putting up taxes on middle and high earners, at least temporarily, in order to fund a Big infrastructure investment in the deprived parts of the country that voted Leave would be a very good way of appeasing everyone.

The middle and high earners might be put out, but the net effect is probably a lot better for them than brexit, and the dissaffected parts of society would benefit because of the increased numbers of jobs and better infrastructure, like more doctors, etc, which is what they really wanted.

The only people hacked off would be the ones that think the EU is an organisation that we should be out of. But we don't know how many of these there really aren't because most people were cheated into voting on other issues.

But the problems of potentially large amounts of future immigration still remains

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36628894

But the problems of potentially large amounts of future immigration still remains

why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?

He had the clearest most coherent vision of a life outside the EU. Even if it it didn't quite stack up, and underplayed some of the negative impacts, he was a lot more impressive than any of the other leave campaigners. Say what you like about how much that comparison's worth.

If people had voted for his vision, and were openly and honestly prepared to accept a significant economic hit in the short to medium term, and those voters got a majority, I would not be complaining about the result.

And where is he now? Getting into fights with interviewers, calling everyone that disagrees with him "toddlers" and then signing off a massive sulk with "This isn't a good time to sulk". Great. Thanks for crystallising your vision, Danny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/we-leavers-are-not-racists-bigots-or-hooligans--no-matter-what-t/

why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?

I think he means it's a political problem rather than a real one. - as in, it won't look good to the large numbers of leave voters.

To be fair, he did promote all that, but like all the other campaigners, he did next to nothing to point out that his aims for leaving were totally incompatible with the others', as long as you voted Leave.

Dozens of campaigners, dozens of agendas, the only thing they have in common is that they all wanted you to put a cross in the same box.

I think ignoring the result but putting up taxes on middle and high earners, at least temporarily, in order to [b]fund a Big infrastructure investment in the deprived parts of the country that voted Leave would be a very good way of appeasing everyone[/b].

The middle and high earners might be put out, but the net effect is probably a lot better for them than brexit, and the dissaffected parts of society would benefit because of the increased numbers of jobs and better infrastructure, like more doctors, etc, which is what they really wanted.

[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale ]Errr.....Not really[/url]

Clearly, some turkeys really enjoy Christmas.

why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?

don't be so stupid.

A lot of people that voted leave did so because they see overpopulation locally and stress on local services - a month to get a doctors appointment, etc.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-salford-vote-european-union-latest-updates-polls-a7103521.html

I would like to say on behalf of Leave we all know that there may be tough times ahead,” said one woman who works as sales assistant at Marks & Spencers. “In my 53 years I’ve had my fair share of them and they are not nice. Tough times make you unable to sleep, cry yourself to sleep, panic about everything – horrible.

But tough times also mean coming out on the other side – which we will – feeling stronger and able to deal with whatever life throws at us. We are a nation of strong hardworking and proud people. Do not call us morons or idiots. As a person who has nearly hit rock bottom but pulled myself up again I’m prepared to do it again for a better society

More countries are going to join the EU and more people are going to come here for economic reasons.

Or are they not ?

And have you the evidence to persuad the leave voters that they are not ?

And if you have it, why doesn't Corbyn have it and why did he not make it plain the the voters, even discounting for the fact the bloke was born not to lead but just to make speeches from the sidelines.

I think now is the time for someone to demonstrate great maturity and large bollocks, and tell us they plan to do what's best for the electorate even if that *appears* to go against what the electorate asked for.

I like the big balls approach

Seems to me the only fair way to do this is to have a general election where the parties lay out their plans for Brexit which will probably fall into three main options:

1. Ignore the referendum
2. Trigger Article 50 and begin negotiations with a view to creating a post-EU UK with more of a focus on trade and freedom of movement with the rest of the world rather than just Europe.
3. Trigger Article 50, pull up the drawbridge, and start kicking the darkies out.

don't be so stupid.

You silver tongued charmer, you.
So quickly to the insults when all other discussion has been very civil.

Upset 51-52% of the people and save the country from 'economic disaster'.

remove the bregreters from that and I think the percentage will come down a lot. All the people that didn't realise the consequences.

Apparently the FTSE is rallying...

More countries are going to join the EU and more people are going to come here for economic reasons.
Or are they not?

They are

And have you the evidence to persuad the leave voters that they are not ?

I don't.

Though I think I have the evidence to persuade them that immigration has always led to a net gain in this country and so it should not be a problem.

Re how much of the electorate you upset, it's 52% of a 72% turnout which is about 40%.
Sounding better already.

Bruce how can it possibly be fair to ignore a simple Remain/Leave referendum ? Its only remotely acceptable if you where on the losing side.

Everything was stacked on the Remain side

Massive campaign spending advantage
All major political parties officially for Remain
No Access to civil service for Leave (no wonder "facts" where so hard to come by)
Significant external pressure from vested interests (look how much global stock marlets are down)
Website left open 2 days after deadline for 2 million extra registrations (assumed to be from younger voters who we hear voted 70/30 Remain)

With a level playing field imho Leave would have won by a mile

The referendum we've just had wasn't an act of democracy; it was an ill-conceived and poorly executed vanity

In my view Referendums are far more democratic than elections where we elect MPs then half the time they go off and do stuff they said they wouldn't. The first EEC referendum is a wonderful case in point, people voted for one thing and then a succession of governments gave them something else none of which we got to vote on

The Swiss have it right with multiple referendums per year

Bruce. Good summary.

jambalaya, do you want 2 or 3?

How do you know that the country will be in economic disaster? How do you know that, if we remained in the EU, in two years time we wouldn't be up shit creek?

Much of the 'growth' under Osborne is simply the result of net migration, more people in the economy. It might add to the GDP but could easily reduce per capita GDP (as well as help squeeze resources). So to that extent, it is a source of concern.

In my view Referendums are far more democratic than elections where we elect MPs then half the time they go off and do stuff they said they wouldn't.

Isn't that exactly what just happened in the referendum? Leave has backtracked on everything it said in the campaign.

Do you think it's a good idea to trust every voter's understanding of the question at hand?

Much of the 'growth' under Osborne is simply the result of net migration

Per-capita GDP has gone up since 2009..?

How do you know that, if we remained in the EU, in two years time we wouldn't be up shit creek?

1) What was the threat?

2) We voted FOR a whole load of risks - are they more or less than the risks in point 1) above

Bruce how can it possibly be fair to ignore a simple Remain/Leave referendum ? Its only remotely acceptable if you where on the losing side.

I'm not saying it's fair. Fair doesn't come into it. The referendum was advisory, not binding.

If a party were to run on a platform of ignoring the referendum and won then you can hardly accuse them of not doing what they said they were going to do if they don't trigger article 50.