On 22/04/2017 11:38, Tim Streater wrote:
In article . com,
dennis@home wrote:

On 22/04/2017 06:31, Handsome Jack wrote:
Roger Hayter posted
Tim Streater wrote:
The Irish had a referendum. There was a result. That should have been
the end of the matter.

Why? I can see why the winners of the first one would prefer that but
I can't see any logical or democratic reason why it shouldn't be
repeated if a government feels that an ill-advised decision has been
made.

If a second referendum is permitted, then some members of the
political elite have to take the decision as to whether it is going
to happen, and that decision will be influenced by those person's
political views. This defeats the object of the referendum, which is
to guide policy by the people's political views, not those of an elite.

If the establishment is going to disallow referendum outcomes with
which they disagree there is no point in having a referendum at all.

I can't understand how this isn't completely obvious to anyone.


You have a referendum where the outcome is split near 50/50 where lies
were told by both parties and where it was expected that one side
would win whatever happened so its completely obvious that a lot of
the votes would be cast as protest votes by people that didn't
actually expect them to count just as is done in by-elections.

If lies are told by both parties what are you complaining about. And
you are talking cock about what is obvious and what is not.


What is obvious to an intelligent person may not be obvious to you.