Do you indulge in digital self harm?

[OwlHoot]

Nah, I just send the messages to others.

I just post here, fatty!

[OwlHoot]

It was an advisory referendum. Any party in power, or who came to power, would be within their rights to view it as too close to call.

If you believe in democracy you would question the advisory nature of it. Why was it not a binding referendum? The real question to ask is why was this detail intentionally made. It is very strange.

If joining the EU on limited terms is an advisory referendum in future, this would be just that - purely advisory. The weird thing about this whole scenario is that the margin was so close, it was advisory, and now we are heading towards an unknown target.

Referenda should always be binding to avoid this situation. At the core of democracy is such a choice. If someone advised me 52% of people voted one way and 48% another way in an advisory referendum, I would suggest the people were almost split down the middle in opinions. If it was a binding referendum, then tough, it should progress regardless.

You are claiming you wish for democracy to be upheld, but if you think carefully it is actually being subverted by the choice of a particular government in power choosing to head down a path based on a very narrowly contested advisory referendum. Democracy, in this case, should be regardless of the government in power. This is why binding referenda exist.

All this carp about advisory this and advisory that overlooks one essential point:

Before the results were known, Cameron & co made it abundantly clear they would respect the result. So in practice it was binding!

[Old Greg]

All this carp about advisory this and advisory that overlooks one essential point:

Before the results were known, Cameron & co made it abundantly clear they would respect the result. So in practice it was binding!

I agree. There's too much sophistry around this. There's a clear democratic mandate around leaving the EU. It's a ******* stupid idea, but there you go.

Unfortunately there's no mandate around the post exit settlement. EEA membership probably reflects where most people sit given the narrowness of the result but it wasn't on the ballot paper. This presents a strong case for a second referendum, not on whether or not to leave, but on the post-leave settlement.

[Mordac]

I agree. There's too much sophistry around this. There's a clear democratic mandate around leaving the EU. It's a ******* stupid idea, but there you go.

Unfortunately there's no mandate around the post exit settlement. EEA membership probably reflects where most people sit given the narrowness of the result but it wasn't on the ballot paper. This presents a strong case for a second referendum, not on whether or not to leave, but on the post-leave settlement.

You're on thin ice, mentioning this sort of thing in General. People have been executed for less. Possibly....

[d000hg]

I've never even heard of this, what a weird idea. Although I wager a lot of people here do it via sockies


--

Whereas the other 48% do nothing but whinge about a democratic process that they obviously don't understand - because it doesn't suit!

A process in which (at least) one side has been punished for acting dishonestly/illegally, and which - to aid your understanding - was not something that had to be followed.

Why are we still going on about it, it's happening get on with it.

[northernladyuk]

I've never even heard of this, what a weird idea. Although I wager a lot of people here do it via sockies

Some of us just outsource it to our bitches.