Ah, but if the result had gone the other way, I would still have an EU Citizenship that I did not want...

 

Man aliiive.

 

This is what anti-equal marriage people used to way. Oi don't want the right!!! Well OK. Don't use it. It is FAR worse to deprive people of freedoms than not to use it if you have it. That's not even an argument.

Ah, but if the result had gone the other way, I would still have an EU Citizenship that I did not want...

 

no-one has ever forced you to go to europe, to buy european goods or have anything to do with europe if you choose not to, and none of the laws ever passed by the EU affect you personally, except perhaps one: coming into contact with more people from the EU. You know, the elephant in the room that Brexiters (Now) keep trying to avoid but were happy to push big-time during the referendum..

 

 

Since there is still so much ongoing discussion over the referendum : I thought it might be worth posting a link to the text of the gov'ts referendum leaflet for reference, so there can be no dispute of what it said.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...sion-for-the-uk

 

very detailed and largely accurate.

 

Compare that to this infantile page of lies...

 

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

very detailed and largely accurate.

 

What gets me is that the gov't used £9m of taxpayers money to produce their pro-EU leaflet, yet Remainers still complain about the funding of the Leave campaign!

What gets me is that the gov't used £9m of taxpayers money to produce their pro-EU leaflet, yet Remainers still complain about the funding of the Leave campaign!

 

They didn't break the rules. They arguably broke the SPIRIT of the rules by doing it before campaigning began, but then you might argue all the rich newspaper propagandists also broke those same rules, albeit without using tax payer money. You might also argue that local government leaflets breaking down what they are doing and taxpayers are paying for are pre-election propaganda - or you might argue it's keeping the tax payers informed on what they are doing and why. The one in power always has that advantage...

I don’t recall you having an issue when the UK gov did the same thing during Indyref....

I don’t recall you having an issue when the UK gov did the same thing during Indyref....

 

Possibly because I took little interest in that referendum, since I am not Scottish.

They didn't break the rules. They arguably broke the SPIRIT of the rules by doing it before campaigning began

 

Rather like tax avoidance - it is legal to do so, but still morally dubious, and once done, there's a lack of credibility if/when they accuse others of similar practices.

Since there is still so much ongoing discussion over the referendum : I thought it might be worth posting a link to the text of the gov'ts referendum leaflet for reference, so there can be no dispute of what it said.

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/...sion-for-the-uk

 

Following on from this...

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...7212#fullreport

 

European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16

 

You can download a PDF of the full text, and Mr 'Queef' might want to peruse section 6 - A Threshold For The Referendum...

Rather like tax avoidance - it is legal to do so, but still morally dubious, and once done, there's a lack of credibility if/when they accuse others of similar practices.

 

That's debatable, but they didn't break the rules. Vote Leave did. Any journalist is free to investigate any Remain campaign illegalities (and there are many many journalists who work for rabid Brexiter proprieters). Had Remain worked and part-financed it's campaign with American assistance (I recall one sentence from Obama threw Farage into mouth-frothing), using illegally-obtained data, targeting people who hadnt given their permission to receive propaganda, and co-operated with illegal data-sharing with Russians, and then won by a whisker, then Brexiters would be screaming bloody blue murder - as Farage did when he thought he'd lost, demanding another referendum.

Possibly because I took little interest in that referendum, since I am not Scottish.

 

Yet you are a member of the United Kingdom and have just voted for the UK, including Scotland, to leave the EU. Selectively interested perhaps, then...?

 

Yet you aren't an American and take quite a lot of interest in the law on gun control in a foreign countries which have citizens who appear to have engineered interference in our own democratic referendum.

 

Just saying....

Yet you are a member of the United Kingdom and have just voted for the UK, including Scotland, to leave the EU. Selectively interested perhaps, then...?

 

Of course - what would be the point of my taking a lot of interest in a referendum that only affected me indirectly?

 

 

Yet you aren't an American and take quite a lot of interest in the law on gun control in a foreign countries which have citizens who appear to have engineered interference in our own democratic referendum.

 

Just saying....

 

But I didn't initiate the gun control threads, and have gone on record here questioning why others here have so much interest in it.

 

Following on from this...

 

http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/Res...7212#fullreport

 

European Union Referendum Bill 2015-16

 

You can download a PDF of the full text, and Mr 'Queef' might want to peruse section 6 - A Threshold For The Referendum...

That section completely overlooks the fact that the government specifically ruled out the need for a threshold because it was an advisory referendum.

That section completely overlooks the fact that the government specifically ruled out the need for a threshold because it was an advisory referendum.

 

Don't look at me, I didn't write it. :teresa:

 

Seriously though, this whole 'advisory' thing is a bit of a red herring, as no democratic gov't could get away with holding a referendum, and then ignoring a result just because they didn't like it - it would be political suicide!

Don't look at me, I didn't write it. :teresa:

 

Seriously though, this whole 'advisory' thing is a bit of a red herring, as no democratic gov't could get away with holding a referendum, and then ignoring a result just because they didn't like it - it would be political suicide!

 

Quebec.

 

Northern Australia.

 

Argentina and Spain vs Fawlands and Gibraltar votes.

 

X

 

All Mad May has to say is Scotland and NI voted in. Leaving would risk the breakup of the UK. 600k more voters isn't enough for major change. The end.

Don't look at me, I didn't write it. :teresa:

 

Seriously though, this whole 'advisory' thing is a bit of a red herring, as no democratic gov't could get away with holding a referendum, and then ignoring a result just because they didn't like it - it would be political suicide!

Switzerland had a referendum on freedom of movement rules and voted for them to be abolished. The Swiss government decided that continued access to the EU single market was more important and ignored the result. Ultimately, MPs are bound by their code of conduct to act in the national interest, not the interests of their party. I still refuse to believe that hundreds of MPs (including T May) experienced a Damascene conversion on the night of 23/24 June 2016.

Switzerland had a referendum on freedom of movement rules and voted for them to be abolished. The Swiss government decided that continued access to the EU single market was more important and ignored the result.

 

But not without consequnce...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/...ers-immigration

 

Also, you carefully fail to mention is that the issue is *not* over...

 

https://www.ft.com/content/154b400e-fae0-11...92-2c9be7f3120a

 

 

, MPs are bound by their code of conduct to act in the national interest, not the interests of their party. I still refuse to believe that hundreds of MPs (including T May) experienced a Damascene conversion on the night of 23/24 June 2016.

 

They didn't need to have - all that was necessary was that they respect the result.

 

I don't know why we're still having this discussion though - the Tories are hardly dumb enough to re-lose all the UKIP supporters they gained back, and who they'll need to hold off Labour to have a chance at the next GE.

Edited April 4, 20187 yr by vidcapper

But not without consequnce...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/...ers-immigration

 

Also, you carefully fail to mention is that the issue is *not* over...

 

https://www.ft.com/content/154b400e-fae0-11...92-2c9be7f3120a

They didn't need to have - all that was necessary was that they respect the result.

 

I don't know why we're still having this discussion though - the Tories are hardly dumb enough to re-lose all the UKIP supporters they gained back, and who they'll need to hold off Labour to have a chance at the next GE.

If they haven't changed their minds then they are going against their own code of conduct. Why do you find that hard to understand?

Of course - what would be the point of my taking a lot of interest in a referendum that only affected me indirectly?

But I didn't initiate the gun control threads, and have gone on record here questioning why others here have so much interest in it.

 

Just pointing out you have opinions on things that don't concern you directly or indirectly - so that isn't an excuse as such. You can say "I don't give a toss about Scotland" or "I'm utterly ambivalent about Scotland" and that's a valid opinion, but "I don't comment on things that don't affect me" is clearly not correct, whoever started the thread.

If they haven't changed their minds then they are going against their own code of conduct. Why do you find that hard to understand?

 

IMO the will of the people is more important than a mere code of conduct.