andrec wrote: It wouldn't look good for the establishment to go in too hard against minor spending infringements in the referendum campaign when the government spent about £9 million sending out a leaflet begging us all to vote remain.
The irony is that had the referendum been binding rather than advisory the result would have been declared null and void because of the criminality of the leave campaign.
Well the referendham was binding as it should be, So you really think votes in a democracy should only be advisory unless they go your way. This is also what the EU thinks as was demonstrated in the Republic of Ireland.
pete75 wrote: The irony is that had the referendum been binding rather than advisory the result would have been declared null and void because of the criminality of the leave campaign.
Well the referendham was binding as it should be, So you really think votes in a democracy should only be advisory unless they go your way. This is also what the EU thinks as was demonstrated in the Republic of Ireland.
windmiller wrote: Well the referendham was binding as it should be, So you really think votes in a democracy should only be advisory unless they go your way. This is also what the EU thinks as was demonstrated in the Republic of Ireland.
Just how much is needed to prove once and for all that the Referendum was advisory, had no legal status and was not binding?
To follow that through means that democracy is not binding and has no legal status, now do you really want to go down that road?
Nope - it is simple
The Referendum was exactly that a referendum.
It is a guiding document that informs democracy
You simply need to recognise reality.
Just to add - it is possible to have a legally binding referendum, it depends on the legislation for the referendum. The 2011 one on alternative votes for parliamentary elections was one of those. The EU referendum was not. Any commitments from politicians have no more legal weight than any other commitments they make to the electorate.
Former member of the Cult of the Polystyrene Head Carbuncle.
windmiller wrote: Do you think votes in a democracy should only be advisory unless they go your way?
please answer the question
Please refrain from putting words in others mouths.
Thank you.
For someone who likes to ask a lot questions you're not so keen on answering them
Answering a closed and leading question is to participate in the untruth often contained in such questions. I feel you need some formal lessons in the rhetorical styles, especially those involving various kinds of logic.
Cugel
“Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence are usually the slaves of some defunct economist”.
John Maynard Keynes
Just how much is needed to prove once and for all that the Referendum was advisory, had no legal status and was not binding?
To follow that through means that democracy is not binding and has no legal status, now do you really want to go down that road?
Nope - it is simple
The Referendum was exactly that a referendum.
It is a guiding document that informs democracy
You simply need to recognise reality.
The reality being that leave lost the vote, if you are of the opinion that the referendum was not an act of democracy and you refused to vote, then I can understand your view point. Would you simply be typing this if the "reality" was that remain won the vote?
roubaixtuesday wrote: Please refrain from putting words in others mouths.
Thank you.
For someone who likes to ask a lot questions you're not so keen on answering them
Answering a closed and leading question is to participate in the untruth often contained in such questions. I feel you need some formal lessons in the rhetorical styles, especially those involving various kinds of logic.
Cugel
I'm not interested in formal lessons in the smoke and mirrors kind of logic which I must admit you are a master of, but hey thanks anyway
andrec wrote: the winners were mainly people who are not used to being taken notice of in our society, not used to getting their way a lot of the time, being influential, and not used to having others obey them in the course of their daily lives as employers, MPs, managers, supervisors, teachers, council officers etc.
andrec: I've turned your post around but still (I hope) faithful to what you wrote. It now implies that the Leave vote was against something that membership of the EU represented - that is to say it wasn't against the EU as such (apart from perhaps freedom of movement) but against something else. It's easy to knock the EU as a bloated, authoritarian, German-dominated unrepresentative, undemocratic bureaucracy. All that may be true but I don't think it lies at the heart of the views of the average Leave voter. A lot of research points to other things - that's why the managerial classes are a bit miffed: it simply makes no sense to them. I would find it very helpful if you could say more about your own views and feelings in order to get an idea about where Leave is coming from. You are fairly new to the forum (welcome, by the way) so previous rantings about sprocket sizes and potholes aren't there to provide a background to your views.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
windmiller wrote: To follow that through means that democracy is not binding and has no legal status, now do you really want to go down that road?
Nope - it is simple
The Referendum was exactly that a referendum.
It is a guiding document that informs democracy
You simply need to recognise reality.
Just to add - it is possible to have a legally binding referendum, it depends on the legislation for the referendum. The 2011 one on alternative votes for parliamentary elections was one of those. The EU referendum was not. Any commitments from politicians have no more legal weight than any other commitments they make to the electorate.
That is why I linked to the enabling document above... it was not and is not in any way, legally binding
