Yes and it was a 50/50 vote. Farage wanted a second referendum it was so close ... until he 'won' an advisory vote on a razor-thin margin with a simplistic binary question. The vote was an opinion, nothing more, an opinion none of us know exactly.

Yawn.

And the whole 'will of the people' is totalitarian newspeak. It really isn't. The whole 'we won, get over it' nonsense over a teeny tiny win in a binary advisory vote is totalitarian newspeak.

Yawn.

Try reading that article I posted on Brexiters and the excuses they now give compared to what was said during the referendum

Bottom line, they lied then, still lying. Faced with facts, they have nothing to offer but failed propaganda using the various categories defined quite well, I thought.

But we accept our governments being elected with a far lower vote share than that...



I did, but chose not to respond to it.
There are many reasons why people voted Leave, but only the more controversial ones seem to get mentioned here.

The majority of people here seem to be of the mind that - because lies were told during the campaign (as if only Leave did that ), and that Leavers are 'too dumb to understand the benefits of membership' the whole result should be struck down.

But it all boils down to *why* the referendum was held - the Tories were sh1t-scared over the rise of UKIP, and their own backbenchers, not to mention their own mistaken belief that the population wasn't really as eurosceptic as the polls suggested they were - a fatal miscalculation. Not that ignoring Euroscepticism would have done them any good in the long run - eventually we'd surely have reached a situation where UKIP held the balance of power in a hung parliament, and thus forced the gov't to hold a referendum *anyway*, in a situation where the Tories would have had even less say over the technicalities.

1. the referendum was advisory not a promise of anything specifically other than a vague "leaving the EU". It's down to the liars who lied about it to deliver and they are failing at every turn.

2. Good to see you are at last repeating what Ive been saying for 2 years about many reasons people voted Leave. You've been quite adamant that they all did it to escape the malicious clutches of the undemocratic EU. Which is just your opinion not everybody else's.

3. No we are of the opinion that since the ref was based on provable lies (not least that the UK would be economically better off immediately on leaving), and that the majority of Remain Predictions have turned out to be true, and that the Leave campaign was financially corrupt and using illegally obtained data on voters, that as it was SO close that a re-run once all the details BY THE LEADING LEAVERS INVOLVED IN ALL OF THE ABOVE have been agreed and signed that the public should have the final say on it's own future. That is what Farage wanted when he thought the result was so close. I agree with him (not the lies he has spewed since as he interferes in the politics of countries throughout the world)

4. Please demonstrate any Remain campaign lies. Please don't include the last-ditch panic-knee jerk reactions by the 2 twats trying to protect their jobs (Cameron/Osbourne) - though, to use your regular argument, even in that situation we have yet to see what happens following Brexit....

5. Speculation on what might have been is pointless as an argument to try to justify what is. Farage might have gone run over by a bus and spared us all the cult of far-right anti-immigrant lying public-school Hitler-loving Nazi-descendant-arse-kissing-German KKK-Breitbart-Fox-worshipping-Trump-campaiging Cambrisge-Anal-lIckita-using illegal-money-spreading-campaigning Russian-Leaking-Wikileaks-visiting-unanswered-questions-after-meeting-Trump German-wide-dumping self-promoting-radio-host-prpoaganda-pushing sorry state that British politics has descended into thanks to his angry, hysterical followers.

NB Please feel to point out any mistakes in my description of Farage - I think you'll find them all entirely proven by evidence. Or just pout "I don't care" and "The End Justifies The Means" again (it doesn't).

The notes accompanying the legislation made it very clear that the referendum was advisory. David Lidington (then Europe minister, now de facto deputy PM) stated very clearly in the Commons that no threshold was required specifically because it was advisory.

Under our (unwritten) constitution parliament is sovereign unless they legislate otherwise. With the EU referendum, they did not do so.

The referendum's advisory nature could hardly be clearer.

1. Not the old 'advisory' chestnut again. *Nowhere* in the gov'ts blurb, or in the campaign itself, was it ever suggested that the result would be anything other than binding, for obvious reasons.

2. But there are 2 different issues here - the desired end result, and each individuals reasons for voting Leave. I've never suggested that every Leavers reasons were the same.

3. Every election result would be invalidated if truthful campaigns were paramount.

Seriously though, any challenge to a vote would have to prove to a courts satisfaction that the result would have been reversed if not for the factors alleged to have affected it. If the margin had been miniscule, as in the Winchester election of 1997, then then there is a credible case - but not where it was well over 1 million votes!

4. I refuse to accept your exclusions.

5. How long did it take you to come up with that rant?

To you, the end might not justify the means, but the referendum result suggests that is a minority view amongst those who voted.

1. Your view doesnt change facts

2. Yes you have

3. Not if the WHOLE campaign were made up of lies. Good to see you've given up defending the lies though and like the politicians who lied try instead to excuse it.

The legal basis isnt being challenged. The moral basis is. We already had the legal basis challenged and the government lost (ie it had to go through Parliament, as it will have to on the final deal)

4. Your choice. I'm happy either way I'll just use your regular excuse "nobody knows until it's happened"

5. Not a rant, a list of opinions and it took about 5-10 mins off the top of my head.

This one was pretty quick, under 3 minutes.

Because I know what I know and think, I dont need to google, plot, carefully edit myself, think again.

I just type and hey presto words appear...

Magic!

1. Maybe, but neither does yours change how the result is being treated by those charged with implementing it.

2. No I have not. Leavers have a shared *objective*, but we don't all share the same *reasons* for wanting out.

3. Government has no business legislating on moral issues - the disaster of US Prohibition is a good example of that.

4. That's not an excuse, it's a truism!

5. A list of opinions many of which contain terms that would be considered offensive by many. But as you know, I believe Freedom of Speech must necessarily include the right to offend, though an offending speaker must still be able to be held accountable for any fallout from their words.

3. Good to see you recognise that denying a final vote on Brexit is immoral.

5. Offensive? To whom? Please feel free to name one that is inaccurate? If it's true it can't be offensive because that is denying reality.

Ps you believe in free speech, no matter who is offended. Thanks for your support on my non-offensive accurate descriptions of one hypocrite who has lied to and damaged the country....

3. I said no such thing - what *would* be problematic would be a choice like.

1. Accept the negotiated deal to Leave
2. Reject it and remain in.

... because that would leave no option for Hard Brexiters, thereby splitting the Leave vote.

5. MY point is, If I'd make a post with so many loaded labels about a liberal favourite, I suspect I would be in danger of getting banned from Buzzjack. But of course I wouldn't do that in the first place as I always endeavour to post politely.

Again, feel free to defend him with facts. Show how he does so much for charity, loves humanity, wishes the best for us all, never does anything hypocritical or illegal, abides by democracy and is an all-round good-egg. This is your chance to make me see the error of my ways with actual examples that show my opinion of him to be unfair....

1. Maybe, but neither does yours change how the result is being treated by those charged with implementing it.

2. No I have not. Leavers have a shared *objective*, but we don't all share the same *reasons* for wanting out.

3. Government has no business legislating on moral issues - the disaster of US Prohibition is a good example of that.

4. That's not an excuse, it's a truism!

5. A list of opinions many of which contain terms that would be considered offensive by many. But as you know, I believe Freedom of Speech must necessarily include the right to offend, though an offending speaker must still be able to be held accountable for any fallout from their words.

Agreed with the last part which is why I hate the policing of Twitter now and people jailed for tweets. Tweets are basically our thoughts made text, so for me it's like the Thought Police out in force.

However aren't you against legalisation of the ganja?? Buut here you say the government has no business legislating morality using alcohol as an example? Hmm.