The human brain's decision making process has been referred to as a difference engine.You take any number of factors and subconsciously (or consciously) give them weightings and then put them into balance.Some factors you will ignore completely (i.e. they won't affect the decision either way - they have a zero weighting if you like); some will sway you one way, and some will sway you the other.Some decisions will be easy - the balance is heavily weighted in one or other direction.Some are harder, with a more even balance.But ultimately you make a decision.And that decision becomes your singular will.The "losing" side of the internal debate ceases to have any importance.I doubt you'd think it disingenuous to refer to "your will" in that manner purely because you ultimately discounted the opposing factors and ignored the irrelevant ones.
The electoral process mirrors this behaviour quite closely.The electorate mirrors your own difference engine.Each elector that casts a vote is a factor, in this case with equal weighting.Those that do not vote have zero weighting.The outcome is a single position for the nation.
How could it be otherwise?
This was our second EU referendum. Fine, the first one was invalid, so we leave.
Also Cameron was elected, in part, from putting the holding of a referendum in a manifesto and then getting elected. Putting stuff in a manifesto to get yourself elected is also how we work.
Do you want to tell Scotland they can never have independence?
How about Welsh devolution? Also cancel it?
There was a referendum vote on the reform of the FPTP system. Something you have wanted.
You are also against having a monarchy. Well I guess you now back never having a referendum on having one. Or if there was one, would you support that?
From the campaign to leave there was a few stand outs at least.
A bus saying we shouldn't give money to the EU and taking back control.
So given it was a vote to leave, then those at least is a good place to start.
Of course its not Brexit forever - if some Party wins a future GE on the basis of joining the EU then they will be free to start negotiations and join. By the same token if another party proposes we become the 51st state and win an election they will be within their rights to start proceedings.
If you have any better way to run things then please share.
They have been investigating for the past 3 years but found no evidence. I believe that the closest they have come is a story from the Conspiracy Theorist Carole Cadwallader alleging that Aaron Banks was offered the chance to invest his own money in a gold mine...
But that's just rhetoric.You've not actually applied any logic to the point made.
Yes, most people (just) would prefer to leave.But there are multiple versions of leave, and some would want to stay if they didn't get their version of leave.Given that the majority for leave was so small, that inevitably means there's a majority to remain when put up against any one version of leave.
If you disagree, that's fine.Just name the version of leave you think would get a majority, and your reasons for believing that would be the case.Just saying 'you can prove anything with statistics' isn't a substitute for rational debate.
That argument makes no sense at all. There are multiple versions of Remain so how do you know what type people voted for?. Many Remainers might want the EU to remain as it is today, others may be quite relaxed at the formation of an EU Army, or fiscal consolidation, or expansion of Shengen, or abolishing the rebate etc. etc.
We know that even if we stay in the EU it will not remain the same as it is now, it is an ever evolving project so who knows what version the Remain supporters want?
I don't agree that there are multiple versions of remain (in this context).Yes, I agree that there are things people would change about our stance in negotiations with the EU, but I think the vast majority of those unhappy with our stance over the past few decades voted to leave.
Conversely, I think many who voted leave would have been happy to remain if our stance to the EU had been different.
And many who voted remain would have voted differently if they were told there would be an EU army. Or lots of other ways the EU continues to ratchet up integration.
Most people I know who voted remain have serious misgivings about the EU. It's extremely disingenuous to portray them as a unified block with one view of what remain means.
Squiffy, the whole EU army thing is a nonsense.There will probably be no EU army, and even if there were we wouldn't have to join it - a situation no different if we're in our out, except if we're in we've more chance of stopping it.
Are you of the view it's just a dangerous fantasy?
The president of the EU disagrees with you.
Juncker calls for an EU army | DW | 10.11.2016