Why Brexit needs a rethink
BJ means BJ
We'll remove this at the end of the month.
The referendum was not legally binding (more)
The EU referendum was advisory - as was discussed in the court ruling on Thursday [3rd November].
It points to the "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy" in the UK, which "led to the conclusion that a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question". "No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act," it adds.
The result was not the will of the people
We've all seen the pie chart showing who voted. The numbers voting to leave are...
- 26.74% of the UK population
- 37.44% of the electorate
- 51.89% of those that voted but...
The referendum was won on a case based on “industrial dishonesty” (more)
Remember the £350million/week to the NHS?
Working the figures we can see that if 0.9% of those that voted leave did so based on false information and would have voted remain if given the facts, he result would have been remain.
And now, the majority of UK now wants to stay in EU (more)
Immediately after the referendum, analysis of voting propensity and mortality rates showed that the vote would swing to remain by mid-2017. (but see articles on this site).
don't you think it's time for all those MPs who campaigned to remain (and who might even be Prime Minister by now) to recognise the mistake? They should either call for a second referendum or simply vote down Article 50. You can help by
a) writing to your Member of Parliament and
b) signing the petition for a second referendum
(other petitions are available)
Considered thought in the form of articles, pithy points and links to other internet content are requested.
Please keep content respectful, legal, decent and truthful and bear in mind "the editors decision is final".