On 19/01/2018 17:54, Andy Burns wrote:
T i m wrote:

Andy Burns wrote:

it'll never be the same as 2/3 of the electorate voting to stay

I know what did happen. I suggesting what should have happened.

I would have agreed with you, if someone had suggested setting e.g. a
specific majority before the referendum; but nobody did, and it's
nonsense to suggest changing it afterwards.

The Scottish vote a while ago required a specific percentage of the
electorate to vote for independence. In other words there was no
distinction between a stay vote or no vote at all, therefore those
staying in the UK didn't bother to vote.

A result was those voting for independence won with a landslide
majority, but still lost the vote. That isn't democracy.

Since you weren't interested enough to cast your vote

How did you manage to come to that conclusion?

Well, if you were interested, why didn't you vote?

you can't really talk.

Thanks. This is what you call 'democracy' is it Andy?

Well ... yes.Â*Â* If you don't participate you have literally *not* had
your say when you had the chance to.

I'm not trying to be funny, but you're one of the people who keep
raising the "2/3 didn't vote for" as though it is equivalent to "2/3
voted against" when it just isn't.

If the referendum hadn't been on Brexit, but instead had been on paying
pensions to all pets over 11 years old, I'd still be arguing that a
result is a result.

Poor losers can't get over the simple fact that for every Remain vote
there were 108 for Brexit.

Made worse if you couldn't be bothered to vote, you were in effect
voting for the winners.

Anyone thinking that anyone who couldn't be bothered to vote is a
remainer isn't very bright.

Thankfully even Remain politicians can generally accept the result of a
referendum, with a few loser exceptions.