Consequences of Brexit [part 7] Read first post before posting

[apelike]

1 minute ago, Obelix said:

They would have to have taken it to an election court and as such because it was only advisory, they cannot do so.

They have never stated that or anything like it either, but parliament could have got involved though. The problem here is it is not and election with individual candidates that could face prosecution and have their seat whipped from under them. Here we are talking about what is basically a political party where a few individuals have acted illegally but no direct evidence that what they did had any direct affect. Illegal actions yes but illegal outcome no.

[Top Cats Hat]

It is irrelevant whether the referendum was illegal or not.

 

Both major political parties took the result as a mandate to leave the EU even though both parties campaigned against it on the grounds that it would do serious damage to the UK economy.

 

A triumph of political cowardice over principle 

[apelike]

14 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Actually no, I ‘m not assuming anything. Most post referendum surveys had 75% of 18-24 year olds voting to remain.

 

Do you have any evidence that this has changed?

Do you have any evidence that the figure of 75% is correct as there are no official statistics as age is not included on the ballot paper. BTW post referendum surveys are by their nature very unreliable.

 

1 minute ago, Top Cats Hat said:

It is irrelevant whether the referendum was illegal or not.

Now that is something I can agree on.

Edited April 8, 2019 by apelike

[Obelix]

12 minutes ago, apelike said:

They have never stated that or anything like it either,

Yes they have. I should know because I was a member of the EC at the time.

[apelike]

3 minutes ago, Obelix said:

Yes they have. I should know because I was a member of the EC at the time.

Then perhaps you could give a link then which states as such, as you obviously know what was said and it should therefor be easy to do.

 

No big rush though as I'm out for now so later will do.

Edited April 8, 2019 by apelike

[Cyclone]

7 hours ago, apelike said:

But the problem with that is you are assuming that 75% of those 2.4 million new voters would vote remain. Now in time honoured fashion please give the data that backs that up.

Perhaps we should just check, by having a second referendum.

[I1L2T3]

8 hours ago, apelike said:

But the problem with that is you are assuming that 75% of those 2.4 million new voters would vote remain. Now in time honoured fashion please give the data that backs that up.

Put it to the test then

[L00b]

8 hours ago, apelike said:

Actually the EC said no such thing, it is a conclusion that the media and others have made out of the EC findings. What the EC said was the some aspects of the campaign were illegal and electoral law was broken, they have never stated to my knowledge that the referendum itself was illegal because of that.

Considering hackey lad's apparent capacity of understanding about constitutional matters, you'll have to excuse me when I re-use his own simplist terminology  for getting the point across.

 

Same difference if you don't, mind: what is sauce for the goose, over-simplistic rethoric by Brexiters, is sauce for the gander, simplistic rethoric by their opponents 

 

Edited April 9, 2019 by L00b

[Obelix]

7 hours ago, apelike said:

Then perhaps you could give a link then which states as such, as you obviously know what was said and it should therefor be easy to do.

 

No big rush though as I'm out for now so later will do.

As noted before I'm not going to debate with you. I'm just pointing out for others where you are factually wrong.

[Top Cats Hat]

12 hours ago, apelike said:

BTW post referendum surveys are by their nature very unreliable.

Actually they are not.

 

Asking people how they voted provides a much more accurate result than asking people how they are going to vote.