kwilco

now you're just sealioning - a passive aggressive response from someone who doesn't have any evidence themselves to disagree. Based on the sound of a sealion, it also resembles a young child who has found he can get an adults attention by repeatedly saying "why" every time te grown up stops speaking. Why not actually join the discussion? If you want to know why not find out for yourself. Here is a bit more on the UK position on refendums "Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect." - wiki

i think you are judging others by your own limitations.

you dropped the "ir"!

Supermajorities have been used for centuries, both in parliaments and referendums. Historically the UK doesn’t use referendums and there are 2 kinds – ones that are binding on the government and those that aren’t 1 January 1973 The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark entered the 'European Economic Community (EEC), Then United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum was a public vote that took place on 5 June 1975, In that referendum in 1975 the UK electorate voted to stay in the EEC. The electorate voted ‘Yes' by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe. – a super majority.This was the first national referendum ever to be held throughout the United Kingdom, and would remain the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011 Many countries require supermajorities either in parliament or in a referendum to make major changes - These Acts/referendums especially constitutional ones require what is commonly referred to as a “Super-majority” The first known use of a supermajority rule was over 2000 years ago in in ancient Rome. The catholic church has used them since the 12th century. The following countries/treaties require supermajorities, mostly in reference to constitutional change – note also that many use their parliament as opposed to a referendum – as they are not necessarily considered to be that democratic The Council of the European Union uses 'Qualified majority voting' for the majority of issues brought before the institution. However, for matters of extreme importance for individual member states, unanimous voting is implemented. An example of this is Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, whereby a member state Australia - To pass an amendment to the Australian Constitution, a referendum is required and must achieve a "double majority": Canada - for most constitutional amendments Denmark - if the government or parliament wants to cede parts of national sovereignty to an international body such as the European Union or the United Nations, it has to get a five-sixths majority Indian Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of members present and voting in each house Finland - when a new legislative proposal would in some way add, alter or remove a part of the Finnish constitution, a bill requires a 2/3 majority Japan. New Zealand Nigeria Philippines Singapore South Korea Spain Taiwan Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom United States United Nations - requires a supermajority of the fixed membership on substantive matters

Yes - most democracies require a two thirds majority to pass a significant constitutional change. Some countries are more used to referendums than others - e.g. Switzerland which runs them all the time. In the UK referendum is not really even part of the democratic purpose - remember too that the result of the EU referendum was even legally binding on the government. with such a tiny majority, it is no wonder that Brexiteers are so sensitive to criticism - they realise by their criteria, they could lose overnight - still!

Another racist cliche is calling legal immigrants "illegal" - and this was a big factor that appealed to racism amongst Brexiteers. not all Brexiteers are racists - but all racists re Brexiteers - the rest are just easily led.

Another cliche!

That is clearly a racist view - There is stupid, stupider and racist.....the idea you can look at the world in terms of race is scientific nonsense - if you are talking about things like =kin color on the same species =then the EU has every kind of that.

As ever a Brexiteer gets it wrong - I was replying to a post.... Race played a strong part in Brexit - racists used immigration and lies about who could and couldn't join the EU specifically to play one people's racist misbeliefs. Racists always use the same cliches instead of arguments - like "play the race card" as i=f that has any relevance to the discussion - they just can't stand to be exposed as racist..

Yes - in 2016 the press carried a lot of stories about this and the Thai authorities agreed at the time to recognise that passports needed to be sent off. I changed my passport several times between 2014 and 2018 and the system changed several times - On my last time I handed my passport to the agency and it was returned with the new one , clipped.

When?

OK - so who clipped the corner off your old passport?

Only a Brexiteer would take offence at that and why is it that racists spend so much time arguing that things aren't recist?

Only a Brexiteer could come up with a statement like that....wrong on every level.

You have the evidence against you already...if you want to present a counter argument the usual process is to back it up

As I said how long ago was that...it was changed in around 2017 and you sent it off....unless they've changes again....

How so?

How long ago was that? You have to send off your passport now.

What evidence are you basing that theory on?

I think you need to study critical thinking a bit.

How can you regain something to never lost?

And they say Brexiteers are dumb.?

It real,you doesn't matter that an Oz company sees a cheap deal..... at the end of the day what are they going to do with a battery company that can't sell to the EU...,,. Ship to the Australian market? (20 million) as opposed to the EU (450 million)? The government is desperate to patch up blunder after Brexit blunder....e.g. secret funding for Nissan..... how much will they put up to prop up this blunder?... anything to mask the inevitable results of Brexit.

You can't take steps until you've admitted something is wrong

What has any of that got to do with EU membership..immigration is up now..