From London, with love: tens of thousands rally against Brexit vote

[mommysboy]

I said I thought there might be a legal challenge. Big guns backed by big guns.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-legal-challenge-launched-businesses-move-to-block-eu-exit-without-act-of-parliament-a7118186.html

[bkkcanuck8]

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

Government finances are a separate issue to the structure of the economy itself. Many politicians have no problems bankrupting themselves regardless.... in fact many are complaining that the financial restraint restricting annual debt to less than 3% a bit too restrictive.... A relatively industrialized countries should not be running substantial deficits during the good years - which would leave lots of room for maneuvering during recessions.... but every politician these days likes raiding and emptying the cupboards -- and their voters just make excuses....

[JHolmesJr]

Anybody remember Lord Rose, the official head of the Remain Camp.

Apparently a BOLO has now been issued for him as he has not been seen or heard of since making this statement on the 3rd of March

Wages will rise if Britain votes to leave the European Union and the number of EU migrants coming to the UK falls, the head of the “in” campaign has admitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html

The former head of Marks & Sparks wants to keep UK in the EU…gee, I never saw that coming….LOL.

His comments prove that all these a-holes care about is cheap labour…screw the citizens of their own country, as long as their profits go up.

[up2u2]

I am interested in the effects this will have on the UK economy. So far the value of the pound has plunged and the UK has lost its AAA rating. So not good signs that it was a sensible decision. Also the people who are advocating don't seem to have much of an idea of what economic effects leaving will have.

The UK lost it's AAA credit rating because they have been growing their debt-to-GDP and they were close to the edge already in which adding an extra 5% or so to it would in itself warranted a downgrade.... a changing of the economic outlook to recession because of uncertainty then restructuring to fit the new reality basically just made them trip over the line a bit quicker.

Yup. UK economics were utterly unsustainable. As are house prices and everything else caught up in the credit bubble.

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

Seems to be plenty of money for Corporate Tax cuts and tax cuts for the wealthy though. The rest will just have to do with Austerity and cuts to services. Cannot believe UK people swallow Right Wing 'trickle down economics' clap trap.

Well what is the projected GDP growth, wages growth, and reduction in unemployment over the budget short term forecast once the UK extracts itself from the EU.

It isn't just enough to rabbit on about immigration without addressing the economic fall out or benefits. By now it is becoming obvious you haven't the slightest idea accept that someone else will work that out later down the track. All sounds pretty stupid to me.

Anyone with a slightly above average IQ would have to vote to Stay until those important economic factors are analysed.

It's like the decision to invade Iraq. Ten years down the track we are still trying to clean up the mess. As usual the protagonists have done a runner and come up with some excuse as to why it is someone else's fault other than their own stupidity at the time.

[7by7]

So why are there Polish people living in tents on public land in the UK?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2841686/The-truth-East-European-migration-One-30-Latvians-living-Britain-one-60-Poles-statistics-don-t-latest-influx.html

Your Daily Mail link says nothing about Poles, or any other nationality, living in tents on public land.

It also fails to mention that the vast majority of all EEA nationals in the UK are working and so paying tax!

Are you referring to situations similar to this: Who lives in Manchester's tent city?

One by one the protest camps were shifted as the resulting injunction took effect, although not before they had escalated the issue of homelessness in the public consciousness – regardless of whether they were all actually homeless. (Even those who work in the sector admit many were professional protesters.)

Some were genuinely homeless, though; and some were Polish

He had originally come to this country to work for recycling firm Biffa in Birmingham, he explains. Six months ago – he is vague about what happened, but it is a story I've heard from other homeless Polish people – he had his passport stolen.

He came to Manchester because he has family nearby and has been sleeping in the tent village since around the start of this year.

“I go to Tesco on Oxford Street every morning at 5am begging,” he says. “I beg for two hours and then make enough for the day.”

Over the months he has made enough to apply for a new passport, he says, and when it comes through he has a job lined up in a food factory in Oldham.

Of course, strictly speaking, as he is both jobless and homeless he should, like other jobless and homeless EEA nationals, not be in the UK.

It is therefore extremely unlikely that he, and they, are in receipt of any state benefits.

[mommysboy]

up2u2

"I am interested in the effects this will have on the UK economy. So far the value of the pound has plunged and the UK has lost its AAA rating. So not good signs that it was a sensible decision. Also the people who are advocating don't seem to have much of an idea of what economic effects leaving will have."

1. If some form of freetrade deal is negotiated : extremely little or no effect. The sticking point is likely to be over free movement. If no deal can be reached, then that is when one worries.

2. If no deal is reached, then UK operates on WTO rules, as does the EU. The situation becomes largely untenable for either the UK or EU the stricter rules are applied, as they are interdependent. The central concern for the UK would be the loss of financial passporting, although in Jan, 2018 the BiFID2 equivalence agreement, comes in to force that allows a third party country to trade as if it were in the single market.

If UK were not to obtain some form of trade deal, you would have to assume that relations with EU had fallen off a cliff. A trade war would develop, which would have severe implications for the UK and EU. But there is currently no reason to suspect that this is likely to happen.

[up2u2]

Anybody remember Lord Rose, the official head of the Remain Camp.

Apparently a BOLO has now been issued for him as he has not been seen or heard of since making this statement on the 3rd of March

Wages will rise if Britain votes to leave the European Union and the number of EU migrants coming to the UK falls, the head of the “in” campaign has admitted.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12181385/Wages-for-British-workers-will-rise-in-the-event-of-a-Brexit-head-of-in-campaign-says.html

The former head of Marks & Sparks wants to keep UK in the EU…gee, I never saw that coming….LOL.

His comments prove that all these a-holes care about is cheap labour…screw the citizens of their own country, as long as their profits go up.

The UK does not have wage protection legislation? Oversight by strong Unions? I agree with you that Corporations will always drive down wages to increase profits but that is why you need strong wage regulations and Union oversight. This has nothing to do with being a member of the EU.

[JHolmesJr]

Anyone with a slightly above average IQ would have to vote to Stay until those important economic factors are analysed.

LOL.

Are you David Cameron? You certainly possess most of his deceitful traits.

Yes, all you brexiters….vote remain for now……we'll analyse the economic factors in the event of an exit and let you know…..then we'll have another referendum for you.

Don't worry…lol…..we got your back…..lol.

It's the Cameron government that should have provided the hard numbers you're demanding before the vote was carried out….but they were pretty cock sure they were going to secure a remain vote by scaring people. Well, that didn't go to plan.

Go ask them why they didn't do their job.

The poor men and women who are seeing their incomes eroded and jobs vanish are not economists.

[jope]

So at the moment the UK is a member of the EU and has a full say plus a veto in EU policy, regulations and laws.

Britain has no veto powers at all, in any EU decision, Cameron gave up the last veto power a few months ago.

You gotta keep up!

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/670220/Cameron-gave-away-Britain-valuable-EU-bargaining-Iain-Duncan-Smith

But apparently as an ignorant Brexit supporter, I shouldn't have known that.

And as an intelligent remainer voter, you should have known that.

I think this literally "unbelievable" claim should not be left unanswered.

1. The article does not say that the UK lost the right to veto. It only reports that one MP claims that Cameron gave it away.

2. During the negotiations Cameron actually demanded to have a veto right whenever it comes to decisions regarding the Euro-zone. The EU was not willing to grant the UK this veto right.

I think that is a tiny little bit different from "Loosing the right to veto".

[nontabury]

A decision to leave the EU and its various institutions is sod all to do with racism.

A desire for controlled immigration is sod all to do with racism.

This is from 2012. A bit out of date, but it highlights perfectly that the current Economic model is not working and they better come up with a new one PDQ.



In reply to your comment about Austerity.

Austerity is caused by the mismanagement of Public funds by incompetent politicians and Civil Servants throughout the EU as a whole.

So leaving the EU is based on excluding certain Nationalities ability to freely enter the UK. What are the economic advantages / disadvantages in leaving the EU? What are the economic advantages / disadvantages in staying in the EU.?

These would be the more important questions for me to decide.

"the economic benefits of leaving. I am yet to hear any person quantify the economic benefits of leaving the EU. Increase in GDP? increase in employment? increase in wages? strengthening of the Pound? AAA+ Credit Rating? Reduced inflation? Increased Foreign trade? Payment of national debt? Balanced budget forecast? Removal of Austerity? New Export deals? New Trade Deals that favour UK citizens and increase their wealth? Not just 'pie in the sky' some tangible numbers on the table."

What part of controlled immigration do you not understand ? Controlled immigration means exactly that, controlling levels of immigration. Nothing to do with excluding certain Nationalities. Ifyou cannot grasp this, then you have serious problems.

I provided a graph showing exactly why the current economic model was not working. We pay someone to be Chancellor and in charge of the money, it is up to him to find an economic model that works. If he cannot do that then it is time for him to resign.

So what immigration does leaving the EU 'control'? What will be the economic benefit of the UK leaving the EU.

So the population makes a bad decision and the Chancellor is expected to wave a magic wand and fix it? lol typical Right Wingers. Cause a mess and others have to clean up after you.

When you can provide a link specifying what '' Certain Nationalities '' that leavers want to have excluded from the UK I will do you the courtesy of providing an answer.

Until then, you are coming across as nothing more than a troll and an rather foolish one at that.

My suggestion who to exclude from the U.K.

[SgtRock]

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

Government finances are a separate issue to the structure of the economy itself. Many politicians have no problems bankrupting themselves regardless.... in fact many are complaining that the financial restraint restricting annual debt to less than 3% a bit too restrictive.... A relatively industrialized countries should not be running substantial deficits during the good years - which would leave lots of room for maneuvering during recessions.... but every politician these days likes raiding and emptying the cupboards -- and their voters just make excuses....

Of course it is. I do not recall disputing this. Whilst it may be a separate structure, Government finances are interlinked to the economy.

The highly complex rules, regulations and financial models are not working.

Time to adopt the KISS it principle.

That would certainly work better than the abortion that the UK is currently using.

[MJP]

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

Government finances are a separate issue to the structure of the economy itself. Many politicians have no problems bankrupting themselves regardless.... in fact many are complaining that the financial restraint restricting annual debt to less than 3% a bit too restrictive.... A relatively industrialized countries should not be running substantial deficits during the good years - which would leave lots of room for maneuvering during recessions.... but every politician these days likes raiding and emptying the cupboards -- and their voters just make excuses....

Of course it is. I do not recall disputing this. Whilst it may be a separate structure, Government finances are interlinked to the economy.

The highly complex rules, regulations and financial models are not working.

Time to adopt the KISS it principle.

That would certainly work better than the abortion that the UK is currently using.

I was just saying the same thing to a colleague.

The 80/20 rule. You can 80% of the job done with 20% of the money.

[Thaiwine]

<snip>

Nigel Farage said, a 52/48 vote would be unfinnished business, now remain supporters agree with him, he did not say a new referendum now if we lose or overturn this one as we don't like it, unfinnished business just means we will work for a future referendum when we think we will win.....

That is what he said on the night when he thought Remain had won! He said that he could accept a two third majority for Remain, but 52% to 48% was too close and another referendum should be held.

Next morning when the actual result showed Leave had won by that small margin, he changed his mind and now says that it is finished business!

Cameron and most of the other prominent Remain campaigners have made it clear, and made it clear before the vote, that the result would be final; whatever the decision. As di, to be fair, Boris and most other prominent Leave campaigners.

It is only Farage and his ilk who said it would be 'unfinished business' if they lost and would want another referendum at some future date if they had lost.

I wonder how those here and elsewhere who are lambasting the Remain supporters who are, wrongly in my opinion, calling for another referendum would be reacting if Remain had won by such a small margin and the hypocrite Farage and other Leave supporters were calling it 'unfinished business' and demanding another referendum?

I suspect that they would be agreeing with him.

I really don't see a conflict of intrests, Nigel Farage's goal was to get a referendum to get the UK out of the EU, so if that goal failed on the 23rd then there would be unfinished business, I read his comment that "He said that he could accept a two third majority for Remain" that he would give up and not try again,

The next morning he said it's finished business ( I take the he changed his mind comment was yours ) as he had done what he wanted, any sensible person is not going to say ohh we won let's do it again, so not a change of mind but achieved his goal.

The other groups had a slightly diffrent agenda there goal was to win only, a lose would be ohh well we tried.

Perhaps you need to aim your hypocrite charge at the scottish nationalists as they want repeat referndums until they get the right result, this time is just a conveniant excuse, if not now they would have found another.

Most exit supporters have said that they would have accepted the result had it not gone their way, thats the way it works,

I defend N/F as I do not have blinkers on, unlike others.

[Celer et Audax]

The referendum produced a small majority based on lies and racist bigotry.

Hardly a glowing mandate.

We can only hope that PM Teresa May manages to slow down or halt this mad rush to oblivion.

That's an inevitable situation whether people like it or not. The end result of all this is not, and never was, an exit from the European Union regardless of how fervently Leave voters may have ticked the boxes. The game now is for Teresa to negotiate a position technically outside Europe but without losing the benefits of Europe.

It's not an enviable position as the UK now has the weakest hand and stands more chance of being forced to accept EU rules and costs without much say. Their other option is to extract themselves fully and rely on the WTO. Given the UKs deep reliance now on a European market for just about everything it's not a good place to be. What a mess.

Lest we forget that the UK was largely forced into joining the EU to survive in the late 1960s. (Britain, post Empire, really was not all that great despite the rosy memories - it was in huge trouble)

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think you will find that we joined the "common market" as was called back then in 1973 which is hardly the late sixties but please correct me if I'm wrong

[Celer et Audax]

A 2nd vote could come along. Don't be so quick to diss the peaceful protestors. It was peaceful protesters against the US war in VN which influenced that war. Initially, powers-that-be were chiding the protesters as a bunch of bedraggled hippies who didn't know how to brush their hair.

I think a 2nd vote would reverse Brexit.

The English lost the match the other day against Belgium... should they get a chance to try again?

Kurt

Which match was that? Tiddlywinks ?

I think you need to refine your google search skills or maybe better still watch the news

[Celer et Audax]

Do you remember Scotland had a referendum, the leave group lost, they accepted the result for now, so they have unfinnished business.

Scotland referendum was not unfinished business. They had always said that they would accept a remain vote (at least for a generation) IF the terms of the union do not change SUCH AS Scotland being taken out of the European Union AGAINST HER WILL. The English electorate have initiated a change and are trying to drag Scotland out of the European Union against her will.... therefore it is England that is driving the need for a final decision on whether Scotland will remain in the UK or remain in the European Union [which apparently they cannot have both]. In other words, it was not unfinished business it was triggered by the UK referendum results.

No need to shout.

It still boils down to "unfinnished business" if your goal is to work for the same goal, no matter how long a time frame you give it.

The vote was for the UK to stay or leave not Scotland.

I think the terms of reference for the Scottish referendum was grossly unfair as it potentially would have had an effect on the UK as a whole so therefore I believe the whole of the U.K. should have been able to vote

End result bye bye Scotland

Off topic sorry

[sujoop]

The freedom of movement directive does not mean, as some believe, uncontrolled immigration from the EEA.

It provides free movement for those exercising an economic treaty right.

• Student
• Jobseeker, but must find a job within three months or leave.
• Worker, employed or self employed.
• Living off independent means, e.g. a pension.

Moving to another member state, e.g. the UK, in order to claim benefits and live off the state is not one of these rights!

Approximately 2 million EEA nationals are exercising one of these rights in the UK.

Approximately 1.5 million British citizens are doing the same in another EEA state or Switzerland.

2 million from 27 EU, three EEA states and Switzerland in the UK; 1.5 million Brits in the other 31 states.

Do the maths; who, as far as the UK is concerned, makes the most use of the directive?

Yet another pro-Brexit myth is busted albeit too late sadly but they could care less. Besides primarily racists and fearful ageing xenophobes, other 'winners' of Brexit comprise those who would benefit from our weakened and fractured economic unions and societies, such as ISIS, China and Russia. Well done Brexiters, WINNING!

[Thaiwine]

The freedom of movement directive does not mean, as some believe, uncontrolled immigration from the EEA.

It provides free movement for those exercising an economic treaty right.

• Student
• Jobseeker, but must find a job within three months or leave.
• Worker, employed or self employed.
• Living off independent means, e.g. a pension.

Moving to another member state, e.g. the UK, in order to claim benefits and live off the state is not one of these rights!

Approximately 2 million EEA nationals are exercising one of these rights in the UK.

Approximately 1.5 million British citizens are doing the same in another EEA state or Switzerland.

2 million from 27 EU, three EEA states and Switzerland in the UK; 1.5 million Brits in the other 31 states.

Do the maths; who, as far as the UK is concerned, makes the most use of the directive?

Yet another pro-Brexit myth is busted albeit too late sadly but they could care less. Besides primarily racists and fearful ageing xenophobes, other 'winners' of Brexit comprise those who would benefit from our weakened and fractured economic unions and societies, such as ISIS, China and Russia. Well done Brexiters, WINNING!

If you look here about EU citizens living in the UK

https://fullfact.org/immigration/eu-migration-and-uk/

It says 3 million EU citizens in 2014, with 2 million in work, so 1 million doing what?

With over half arriving in the last eight years (2014 figures)

Now go check 7by7's figures, ohh you can't no link

[Thaiwine]

Brussels sending emails out telling MP's to vote to cancel referendum

Edit I did post a link seems to have gone

Edited July 4, 2016 by Thaiwine

[jope]

Brussels sending emails out telling MP's to vote to cancel referendum

Similar to the "lost veto"-claim from MissAndry, your conclusion seems wrong to me:

the MP did not say " 'Brussels' sent me an e-mail", he said a Commission employee located in Brussels sent him an e-mail. Sounds more like a personal anger-mail of somebody. I would not be surprised, if this MP received quite a few of these anger-mails over the last few days.

[Thaiwine]

Brussels sending emails out telling MP's to vote to cancel referendum

Similar to the "lost veto"-claim from MissAndry, your conclusion seems wrong to me:

the MP did not say " 'Brussels' sent me an e-mail", he said a Commission employee located in Brussels sent him an e-mail. Sounds more like a personal anger-mail of somebody. I would not be surprised, if this MP received quite a few of these anger-mails over the last few days.

Could be I took it to mean official EU email

[bkkcanuck8]

Do you remember Scotland had a referendum, the leave group lost, they accepted the result for now, so they have unfinnished business.

Scotland referendum was not unfinished business. They had always said that they would accept a remain vote (at least for a generation) IF the terms of the union do not change SUCH AS Scotland being taken out of the European Union AGAINST HER WILL. The English electorate have initiated a change and are trying to drag Scotland out of the European Union against her will.... therefore it is England that is driving the need for a final decision on whether Scotland will remain in the UK or remain in the European Union [which apparently they cannot have both]. In other words, it was not unfinished business it was triggered by the UK referendum results.

No need to shout.

It still boils down to "unfinnished business" if your goal is to work for the same goal, no matter how long a time frame you give it.

The vote was for the UK to stay or leave not Scotland.

I think the terms of reference for the Scottish referendum was grossly unfair as it potentially would have had an effect on the UK as a whole so therefore I believe the whole of the U.K. should have been able to vote

End result bye bye Scotland

Off topic sorry

On the same grounds the UK referendum would be grossly unfair since it affected the entire EU and the entire EU should have been able to vote on whether UK was in or out

[steve654]

I am interested in the effects this will have on the UK economy. So far the value of the pound has plunged and the UK has lost its AAA rating. So not good signs that it was a sensible decision. Also the people who are advocating don't seem to have much of an idea of what economic effects leaving will have.

The UK lost it's AAA credit rating because they have been growing their debt-to-GDP and they were close to the edge already in which adding an extra 5% or so to it would in itself warranted a downgrade.... a changing of the economic outlook to recession because of uncertainty then restructuring to fit the new reality basically just made them trip over the line a bit quicker.

Yup. UK economics were utterly unsustainable. As are house prices and everything else caught up in the credit bubble.

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

The "educated" are always in denial when the so called "uneducated" have so much more common sense and sound reasoning.

[bkkcanuck8]

It is quite amazing that us uneducated leavers are able to identify that the UK's economics were heading to the gutter and one of the methods of rectifying that was to leave the EU and forge our own path free of EU constraints and by controlling immigration levels.

And soooooo many people cannot see or understand this.

Government finances are a separate issue to the structure of the economy itself. Many politicians have no problems bankrupting themselves regardless.... in fact many are complaining that the financial restraint restricting annual debt to less than 3% a bit too restrictive.... A relatively industrialized countries should not be running substantial deficits during the good years - which would leave lots of room for maneuvering during recessions.... but every politician these days likes raiding and emptying the cupboards -- and their voters just make excuses....

Of course it is. I do not recall disputing this. Whilst it may be a separate structure, Government finances are interlinked to the economy.

The highly complex rules, regulations and financial models are not working.

Time to adopt the KISS it principle.

That would certainly work better than the abortion that the UK is currently using.

I was just saying the same thing to a colleague.

The 80/20 rule. You can 80% of the job done with 20% of the money.

<a continuation of sorts>

An debt fueled budget is a separate issue to the economic structure but it does not mean that it cannot become a burden on the economy. If you fuel a mature economy by running up the debt, a larger and larger portion in the future has to go with servicing the debt leaving nothing -- which leads to higher taxes to just to maintain existing services etc. This acts as a brake on the economy.

Running a deficit to maintain social programs is like running up your credit card to buy food and take the bus. Once you have eaten it is gone, but sooner or later the creditors will come and take more of your money leaving you with less.

If you are a developing economy then you might run a deficit to build infrastructure to help the economy such as allowing products to get to port and be shipped internationally. It is new infrastructure, not replacing infrastructure and running a 2% debt when the economy grows at 8% seemingly indefinitely - may be a wise investment.

In a mature economy, you are often not building new infrastructure and infrastructure spending is generally constant and thus can be budgeted out of existing revenues because you are mostly maintaining what infrastructure you have -- even if you have to tear down and rebuild.

In government mismanagement can horribly effect the future of the economy... and it can stall the economy by not allowing businesses to plan etc. A government bankrupting itself will have an effect because the taxpayer is effectively the guarantor, but it is still a separate issue.

[PattayaBoy]

They want make superstate from EU.

http://www.infowars.com/eu-response-to-brexit-totalitarian-super-state/

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[MJP]

They want make superstate from EU.

http://www.infowars.com/eu-response-to-brexit-totalitarian-super-state/

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Been known for years, but none paid any attention.

[lucky11]

Once again, emotionally fragile people, unable to tolerate not getting their own way, huddle together in a mass virtue signalling event, massaging their bruised little egos, hoping that the nasty people will go away.

I always thought that the purpose of a referendum was to establish the democratic majority view.

They should stop the protesters from protesting as it against democratic principles to do so.

Neither of you make sense.

As a previous poster pointed out, Americans protested and eventually the govt. had to listen.

Similarly, protesters came out and (sort of) changed the poll tax.

In neither case was a referendum involved.

You don't seem to understand.

In a referendum the people decide on something through a vote (democratic process). The majority wins the day in determining the direction of what they are voting on.

You can't have people contesting (protesting) this as it goes against democratic principles.

If a protest is held on wrongdoings or poor performance of a government (for example) and people want to demonstrate their grievances over this, then that is legitimate and a whole different ball game.

Protesting the results of a referendum is akin to the losing side of a general election coming out onto the streets because their side didn't win free and fair elections!

[PattayaBoy]

They want make superstate from EU.

http://www.infowars.com/eu-response-to-brexit-totalitarian-super-state/

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

Been known for years, but none paid any attention.

NWO

[dick dasterdly]

Once again, emotionally fragile people, unable to tolerate not getting their own way, huddle together in a mass virtue signalling event, massaging their bruised little egos, hoping that the nasty people will go away.

I always thought that the purpose of a referendum was to establish the democratic majority view.

They should stop the protesters from protesting as it against democratic principles to do so.

Neither of you make sense.

As a previous poster pointed out, Americans protested and eventually the govt. had to listen.

Similarly, protesters came out and (sort of) changed the poll tax.

In neither case was a referendum involved.

You don't seem to understand.

In a referendum the people decide on something through a vote (democratic process). The majority wins the day in determining the direction of what they are voting on.

You can't have people contesting (protesting) this as it goes against democratic principles.

If a protest is held on wrongdoings or poor performance of a government (for example) and people want to demonstrate their grievances over this, then that is legitimate and a whole different ball game.

Protesting the results of a referendum is akin to the losing side of a general election coming out onto the streets because their side didn't win free and fair elections!

I think that is what I posted?

Edit - If not, I apologise.

Edited July 5, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[JetsetBkk]

Let's have a laugh (at the Remainers expense)...