If people didn't vote then they are not to be included. Simple as that.
The majority of those that could be bothered to vote, voted to leave.
You can't say only x% of the total voting public voted to leave so it wasn't a majority. As wrong as they were of course!
You could argue that if those that assumed remain would win easy and didn't bother to vote had voted, then we wouldn't be in the mess we are now.
This is all semantics anyway, we can discuss the rights and many wrongs of Brexit until we have worn away our fingers bashing the keyboard or providing endless links that support our side of the argument or quoting posts from 10 years ago, but the fact is when you listen to all the people being interviewed on either side, everyone is completely fed up with it and just wants it to end.
The facts in my original post?Aside from numerical rounding to the nearest integer, what facts were incorrect?
Attributing those who didn't exercise their right to vote to the total like it had some meaning in context of those who did exercise their right to vote.
What I wrote was
Meaning, obviously, that since they didn't vote, we don't know what their will is (to remain or leave), either way. That is factually correct.
The 28% people who didn't vote, added to the 72% who did, totals 100% of 'the people'.
I honestly don't know what you are talking about.
The full bit you wrote is above (well after the edit, I have no access to what it was before anymore and didn't realise there was an edit). Anyway. You are suggesting it is the will of 37.5% of the people. I'm saying that is incorrect. After there is a vote the outcome becomes it.
Anyway I don't think we ever agree and it is really not useful to keep playing back and try and rewrite what actually happened. There was a democratic vote, the people voted, and the outcome is to leave the EU.
What worries me, is that we had a vote and it was all based on lies. Regardless of remain or leave there were lies on both sides.Yet that is supposedly ok?
"Well politicians lie all the time and manifestos aren't worth the paper they are written on".That is true to a certain extent but this is so far beyond the norms that we shouldn't accept that. We have jammed up our Parliament for 3 years with this crap. We should be sorting out schools, poverty, NHS reform, social care, HS2 and a million other things.
"We won you lost" doesn't cut it. Not when the reality is this, right now.
By the way, if we end up with a quasi-customs union with the EU with no say then I will be just as hopping mad as the Brexit extremists, it's a funny old world :image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
The vote was to leave the EU, i expected a hard brexit from my victory, and why are we extremists?
and we won you lost does cut it unfortunately the losing side and their remainer PM have done their best to fudge the end game.
I didn’t change the core of my first post.
I’m not suggesting it is the will of 37.5% of the people, I’m stating it as an obvious and inarguable fact. That was the outcome of the referendum. Just because it is a binary referendum, once the result is counted and declared, leaving does not suddenly become the will of 100% of the people.
I can state this as a fact also because it was not and is not my will, and judging by the fact that other people also currently do not want to leave the EU, it is not their will either.
Also, and I haven’t stressed this before, she is saying that it *is* the will of the people rather than that it *was* the will of the people in the 2016 vote.In light of subsequent events, I think fewer people would vote to leave if there was a second referendum.
Strange that the government et al were certain Remain would win the first referendum. Apparently they had their finger on the pulse and backed up by 'experts'.
Just goes to show.
There are so many different opinions on not only how we derive the will of the people, butalso it's actual importance to the Democratic process.
There is no universally accepted right way to implement democracy and each implementation is subject to changes and/or compromises for practicalities sake.
Even democracy itself as a principal is seen and valued differently. For some democracy is seen as a fundamental principle, while for others it is merely the best of the flawed solutions available. There are even those that see alternatives to democracy as a preferred choice.
Within those like myself that see democracy as the only practical solution currently available on an ethical basis, there are still varied and opposing views.
Should we stick to and comply with the rules of a system we have tacitly agreed to for the sake of the system?
Is the protecting of the system more important to our overall well-being than anything else.
For me at least, the damage caused by protecting the system is overweighed by the damage of following* the system in this extreme case that is brexit.
* blindly and absolutely according to some people's interpretation.