@stevep59 I wasn't grasping at anything, I pointed out a factual error. Because there's absolutely zero evidence that most people in the UK wanted to leave and there still isn't, in fact polls indicate the contrary.
Same with the electorate, it was just a plurality of the electorate that voted to leave, not a majority.
But I'm not arguing against the outcome of the election, the results are what they are, they basically say nothing at all.
I don't really care what happens to the UK at this point, I would have prefered if you stayed but you decided not to, that's behind us. The EU however have no obligation to give a flying flamingo about the UK electorate's will, I think the EU should take a very hard line and not budge at all on the 4 pillars, ie if the UK want market access or favored status over WTO default rules then you gotta accept the other 4 pillars etc, all of them. ie the UK can choose between no deal and no access, or a Norway deal where they accept ECJ jurisdiction etc etc in exchange for access. If the UK wants to duke it out alone, then really duke it out alone. Good luck with that, but don't expect to cherrypick what you want out of the EU.
Now if you really want to argue the election I think that either the first election should have been ran completely differently, or there should have been 2 elections.
Basically it's too easy to change the status quo, and, I would argue that changing it on something massive like that should have required a majority of the electorate(more than 50% of all elegible voters), or a significantly larger voter share(something like 65+%). Basically everybody who didn't bother to vote was comfortable with the status quo and that should be taken into consideration.
As it stands nobody has any clue whatsoever which leave option the electorate voted for, because that question wasn't asked. Either the terms for leaving should have been done and sealed before the elction so there's only an unabiguous Stay or and unabiguous "leave under these exact premises" choice, or there should have been a second referendum once the leave deal had been determined asking something along the lines of
1. Leave under Johnson/May's deal
2. Yolo hard exit, no deal at all.
3. Revoke A50.
33
@stevep59 I wasn't grasping at anything, I pointed out a factual error. Because there's absolutely zero evidence that most people in the UK wanted to leave and there still isn't, in fact polls indicate the contrary.
Same with the electorate, it was just a plurality of the electorate that voted to leave, not a majority.
But I'm not arguing against the outcome of the election, the results are what they are, they basically say nothing at all.
I don't really care what happens to the UK at this point, I would have prefered if you stayed but you decided not to, that's behind us. The EU however have no obligation to give a flying flamingo about the UK electorate's will, I think the EU should take a very hard line and not budge at all on the 4 pillars, ie if the UK want market access or favored status over WTO default rules then you gotta accept the other 4 pillars etc, all of them. ie the UK can choose between no deal and no access, or a Norway deal where they accept ECJ jurisdiction etc etc in exchange for access. If the UK wants to duke it out alone, then really duke it out alone. Good luck with that, but don't expect to cherrypick what you want out of the EU.
Now if you really want to argue the election I think that either the first election should have been ran completely differently, or there should have been 2 elections.
Basically it's too easy to change the status quo, and, I would argue that changing it on something massive like that should have required a majority of the electorate(more than 50% of all elegible voters), or a significantly larger voter share(something like 65+%). Basically everybody who didn't bother to vote was comfortable with the status quo and that should be taken into consideration.
As it stands nobody has any clue whatsoever which leave option the electorate voted for, because that question wasn't asked. Either the terms for leaving should have been done and sealed before the elction so there's only an unabiguous Stay or and unabiguous "leave under these exact premises" choice, or there should have been a second referendum once the leave deal had been determined asking something along the lines of
1. Leave under Johnson/May's deal
2. Yolo hard exit, no deal at all.
3. Revoke A50.