Brexit hits speed bump as court rules lawmakers must get say

[cumgranosalum]

19 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

 

HMMM.....

"The plan was to blow up the House of Lords during the State Opening of England's Parliament on 5 November 1605, as the prelude to a popular revolt in the Midlands during which James's nine-year-old daughter, Princess Elizabeth, was to be installed as the Catholic head of state." - wiki

 

in essence this was a plan to destroy parliamentary sovereignty and bring England in line with Europe under the power of Rome. ring any bells?

like on most issues it appears Brexiteers are either mis-informed or have the wrong end of the stick

[cumgranosalum]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 The Conservative manifesto promised a referendum on EU membership with a straight remain or leave question; and they delivered on that pledge.

referendum

ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/  

noun

noun: referendum; plural noun: referenda; plural noun: referendums

1. a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision

 

Which is exactly what this was. A vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note that in the name of our nation 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are geographical locations, not political entities. There is, after all, no political entity named Great Britain!

 

As well as England voting to leave, so did Wales.

 

But this was a vote by the whole of the UK, not individual parts of it. As a whole the electorate voted to leave.

 

You seem to be saying that those parts of the UK which voted to remain should not be dictated to by the majority who voted to leave.

 

I assume you include London in that as London voted to remain. To get even more local, as a whole the South East, where I live, voted to leave, the constituency where I live voted to remain. I, as an individual, voted to remain.

 

Am I being dictated to by the majority who disagree with me and voted accordingly? Yes; that is how democracy works!

 

As I said previously, whilst I believe that Parliament should approve the final agreement between the UK and the EU, I see no need for any agreement by Parliament to authorise the start of negotiations. The referendum result gave the government the mandate for that.

 

I am aware that the High Court, and therefore the law, says otherwise; but as Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist: ""If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot."

 

 

This post demonstrates how so many Brexiteers fail to understand either  the workings of UK democracy or the significance of the referendum. it is based on assumptions rather than a true appreciation of what was actually going on - an attitude that proved to be a common denominator amongst the disparate factions of the "leave" campaign

 

Here are a couple of quotes from the HoC briefing paper available to MPs in June of 2015.....

 

" This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion, which then influences the Government in its policy decisions"

 

" The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented"

 

 - [HoC 3/6/2015]

Edited November 6, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[rockingrobin]

26 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

How about 1972. That was democratic. The UK parliament made its own decisions not made up from Brussels. If it is democracy you wanted that is the date you should be looking at. This is the main problem with people. They don't realize that the UK parliament has very little control anymore. The EU with all its treaties have ensured that. Getting out of the EU has demonstrated that. Your first opening line is great. You just need to know your history.

 

You could argue that The Mirror, Times and Impendent do exactly the same  from another perspective. Along with the BBC who are the 'kings' of biased in the UK today.

' They don't realize that the UK parliament has very little control anymore. The EU with all its treaties have ensured that.'

You fail to acknowledge that the UK government and parliament freely enter into these treatise. 

MPs are accountable to the people who have had the opportunity to vote in alternative (UKIP) if they so wished. 

[cumgranosalum]

" Brexit is turning into one of those times when you dramatically storm out, slamming the door, only to then have to go back to get your keys." - 

Tony Cowards.

[cumgranosalum]

42 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

How about 1972. That was democratic. The UK parliament made its own decisions not made up from Brussels. If it is democracy you wanted that is the date you should be looking at. This is the main problem with people. They don't realize that the UK parliament has very little control anymore. The EU with all its treaties have ensured that. Getting out of the EU has demonstrated that. Your first opening line is great. You just need to know your history.

 

You could argue that The Mirror, Times and Impendent do exactly the same  from another perspective. Along with the BBC who are the 'kings' of biased in the UK today.

You fail to understand the media - it isn't a question of "bias" - it is a question of logic and agenda...the papers such as the Mail are run for the advantage of single identities with an ultra right-wing agenda.

Edited November 6, 2016 by cumgranosalum

[sandyf]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 The Conservative manifesto promised a referendum on EU membership with a straight remain or leave question; and they delivered on that pledge.

referendum

ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/  

noun

noun: referendum; plural noun: referenda; plural noun: referendums

1. a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision

 

Which is exactly what this was. A vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note that in the name of our nation 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are geographical locations, not political entities. There is, after all, no political entity named Great Britain!

 

As well as England voting to leave, so did Wales.

 

But this was a vote by the whole of the UK, not individual parts of it. As a whole the electorate voted to leave.

 

You seem to be saying that those parts of the UK which voted to remain should not be dictated to by the majority who voted to leave.

 

I assume you include London in that as London voted to remain. To get even more local, as a whole the South East, where I live, voted to leave, the constituency where I live voted to remain. I, as an individual, voted to remain.

 

Am I being dictated to by the majority who disagree with me and voted accordingly? Yes; that is how democracy works!

 

As I said previously, whilst I believe that Parliament should approve the final agreement between the UK and the EU, I see no need for any agreement by Parliament to authorise the start of negotiations. The referendum result gave the government the mandate for that.

 

I am aware that the High Court, and therefore the law, says otherwise; but as Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist: ""If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot."

 

 

You can spin it any way you want but it cannot be denied that the lack of respect for the devolved administrations and the rhetoric on immigration has caused divisions that are effectively beyond repair.

A few years ago it was the football hooligans that brought the country into disrepute but now with emergence of the brexit hooligan some of us are once again ashamed to be British.

If the rule of law is considered inappropriate then it should be changed, not abused, that is hooligan mentality.

[jpinx]

26 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

" Brexit is turning into one of those times when you dramatically storm out, slamming the door, only to then have to go back to get your keys." - 

 

Tony Cowards.

 

 

Brilliant !!  :D:D:D

[RuamRudy]

 The Conservative manifesto promised a referendum on EU membership with a straight remain or leave question; and they delivered on that pledge.
referendum ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/   noun noun: referendum; plural noun: referenda; plural noun: referendums

1. a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision

 
Which is exactly what this was. A vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note that in the name of our nation 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are geographical locations, not political entities. There is, after all, no political entity named Great Britain!
 
As well as England voting to leave, so did Wales.
 
But this was a vote by the whole of the UK, not individual parts of it. As a whole the electorate voted to leave.
 
You seem to be saying that those parts of the UK which voted to remain should not be dictated to by the majority who voted to leave.
 
I assume you include London in that as London voted to remain. To get even more local, as a whole the South East, where I live, voted to leave, the constituency where I live voted to remain. I, as an individual, voted to remain.
 
Am I being dictated to by the majority who disagree with me and voted accordingly? Yes; that is how democracy works!
 
As I said previously, whilst I believe that Parliament should approve the final agreement between the UK and the EU, I see no need for any agreement by Parliament to authorise the start of negotiations. The referendum result gave the government the mandate for that.
 
 
 

Much of what you wrote is, of course, entirely correct in principle, which simply emphasises why the political entity that is the UK must be ended.

[vogie]

 

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, rockingrobin said:

' They don't realize that the UK parliament has very little control anymore. The EU with all its treaties have ensured that.'

You fail to acknowledge that the UK government and parliament freely enter into these treatise. 

MPs are accountable to the people who have had the opportunity to vote in alternative (UKIP) if they so wished. 

 

That's because General and By Elections tend to be decided on pressing issues of the day. I think it's fairly obvious that brexit has now become the pressing issue, and will play a big part in all forthcoming parliamentary elections.

 

By the way Robin, I knew what you meant when you used the word 'treatise', which has a different meaning to the word 'treaties', that you meant to use. Can't fathom out why certain posters haven't pulled you up on this though .

[rockingrobin]

2 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

That's because General and By Elections tend to be decided on pressing issues of the day. I think it's fairly obvious that brexit has now become the pressing issue, and will play a big part in all forthcoming parliamentary elections.

 

By the way Robin, I knew what you meant when you used the word 'treatise', which has a different meaning to the word 'treaties', that you meant to use. Can't fathom out why certain posters haven't pulled you up on this though .

I agree , the electorate needs to become more savvy .

[nontabury]

20 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

Grouse, Grouse, StLouisBlues is new to these discussions, but he will learn. You should know better, having been admonished by the mods several times over this.

 

It's not as though your (or my or anyone else's) spelling is perfect. I recently had a discussion with you where you misspelled a word in several consecutive posts. I kept spelling the word correctly in my replies, rather than ridicule you, but you just simply failed to notice.

 

You really need to grow up over this. I knew what SgtRock meant, as, I'm sure, did most others.

 

You have to realise that St Louise Blues is like some others on this thread, he supports the Remoaners even though he is not British.

[nausea]

On 11/4/2016 at 7:16 PM, cumgranosalum said:

the Beeb had a nice take on things when MP for Romford Andrew Rosindell  demanded they now play "God Save the Queen" at the end of the night to celebrate UK's departure from the EU......God Save the Queen

That is sooo funny. Glad to see the great British "Sense of Humour" is alive and kicking. Healthy sign if you ask me. The vitriolic attack on the judiciary, and the lukewarm defence, not so healthy.

[nontabury]

5 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

"I want my country back"

Yes, I'd like to go back to the place it was before 23rd June. More civilised and democratic.

We seem to be lurching to some kind of mob-rule with  certain newspapers doing all they can to fan the flames. The Daily Mail's 'Enemies of the People" headline was a disgrace. 

I've been a Conservative supporter for the past 15 years, but watching this year's Conservative Conference was painful. I agree with the MP who just resigned that the party is aiming to become 'UKIP light'. Amber Rudd's speech was dreadful. May seems to coming up with all sorts of ill-considered industrial policy which has not been debated within the party. And the comment about foreign-born doctors being able to 'go home' was pretty outrageous.  I am really surprised that Liz Truss (and May) have not come out to roundly condemn the press comments about the judges.

 

 

At least if you so wish you can read the Daily Mail,here in Thailand where they've had a military coup d'etat, we cannot read it. Probably in the near future,those in the UK will also not be allowed to do what the majority wants, now that there has been an establishment coup d'etat.

 

     Does anyone know the telephone No  of Cromwell.

[Johnyo]

 
At least if you so wish you can read the Daily Mail,here in Thailand where they've had a military coup d'etat, we cannot read it. Probably in the near future,those in the UK will also not be allowed to do what the majority wants, now that there has been an establishment coup d'etat.
 
     Does anyone know the telephone No  of Cromwell.

I have no problems reading the Daily Mail in Thailand. To be honest I wish I couldn't. Yesterday's headlines was not far away from Nazy propaganda.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[cumgranosalum]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Much of what you wrote is, of course, entirely correct in principle, which simply emphasises why the political entity that is the UK must be ended.

 

 

It appears that neither you nor the Daily Mail realise that one of  the reasons they can publish is because the UK has an INDEPENDENT judiciary - one of the three safeguards/cornerstones of a democracy. something that Brexiteers choose to ignore at their convenience. A simple majority vote is only part of democracy - on it's own it is mob rule.

Living in Thailand, you should be able to see quite clearly the problems that confront a nation without an independent judiciary.

[RuamRudy]

It appears that neither you nor the Daily Mail realise that one of  the reasons they can publish is because the UK has an INDEPENDENT judiciary - one of the three safeguards/cornerstones of a democracy. something that Brexiteers choose to ignore at their convenience. A simple majority vote is only part of democracy - on it's own it is mob rule.
Living in Thailand, you should be able to see quite clearly the problems that confront a nation without an independent judiciary.

Are you sure that you are replying to the correct post? I never commented in any detail about the legal challenge to Article 50, I was and remain positive about the EU, and I no longer live in Thailand.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

like on most issues it appears Brexiteers are either mis-informed or have the wrong end of the stick

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

[cumgranosalum]

2 minutes ago, nontabury said:

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

"voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented" - no they didn't they voted because at the end of the day they know..." It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum"

[nontabury]

1 minute ago, cumgranosalum said:

"voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented" - no they didn't they voted because at the end of the day they know..." It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum"

 

 So you are saying that Hillary Benn and others from both side of the house, who voted to Remain,did not know what they were voting for. Interesting.

[rockingrobin]

19 minutes ago, nontabury said:

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

Can you provide a link for Hilary Ben criticizing the ruling

[rockingrobin]

32 minutes ago, nontabury said:

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

This  is what H Benn said after the verdict announcement

 

' 

Brexit select committee chairman Hilary Benn said he would vote in favour of triggering Article 50 but it was important that Parliament should have a role in the process.

The Labour MP told BBC2's Daily Politics: "This is an important judgment on the sovereignty of Parliament. It is not about a decision on whether we are leaving the European Union, because we are - the British people made that choice in the referendum and I think Parliament should uphold it.

"But there is ... a debate to be had about what kind of relationship we are going to have and therefore the Government's negotiating objectives are really important."

Mr Benn said he would vote in favour of triggering Article 50 "but that is separate from what we should be seeking to negotiate in that process".

[cumgranosalum]

33 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 So you are saying that Hillary Benn and others from both side of the house, who voted to Remain,did not know what they were voting for. Interesting.

That is a particularly facile take on my post - but evidently about par for your level of thought and argument.

 

actually I think that second guessing MPs in the vague hope they might support your position on Brexit is a particularly naive and pointless line to take

the fact is - and there are precious few facts on this thread - that there isn't "any [legal] requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum" - to quote a Brexit cliche "get over it"

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

30 minutes ago, cumgranosalum said:

That is a particularly facile take on my post - but evidently about par for your level of thought and argument.

 

actually I think that second guessing MPs in the vague hope they might support your position on Brexit is a particularly naive and pointless line to take

the fact is - and there are precious few facts on this thread - that there isn't "any [legal] requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum" - to quote a Brexit cliche "get over it"

 

 

•  

True. But whether we like it or not, there are powerful political factors that most likely will lead to article 50 being invoked by Parliament.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

  Hillary Benn a prominent Labour front bench M.P has now joined other MP's who voted for Remain, to come out and criticise the ruling of these establishment judges, stateing that ALL the M.P's who voted six to one to hold the referendum did so on the understanding that the democratic result would be implimented. So it would seem that what we have witnessed this week is just another delaying tactic by the Remoaners. Could this be so that they and their supporters both domestic and internationally will have further time to cause havoc on the British economy, in the hope that they can bully and pressurise the British people,as they did so successfully to the electorate in the Netherlands,France and the R.O.I. 

The ruling was not about whether the result should be implemented, it was to do with how the result should be implemented, big difference.

 

Another factor that has been conveniently overlooked is para 1 of Article 50., and whether people like it or not withdrawal is subject to the requirements of the UK constitution.

 

1. “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, sandyf said:

The ruling was not about whether the result should be implemented, it was to do with how the result should be implemented, big difference.

 

Another factor that has been conveniently overlooked is para 1 of Article 50., and whether people like it or not withdrawal is subject to the requirements of the UK constitution.

 

1. “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

Nothing in the ruling says or assumes that the referendum should or shouldn't be implemented. It just said that the decision should be made by Parliament. The justices were careful to say that they weren't taking sides on the Brexit issue. This was simply a technical decision based on British law.

[sandyf]

6 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Nothing in the ruling says or assumes that the referendum should or shouldn't be implemented. It just said that the decision should be made by Parliament. The justices were careful to say that they weren't taking sides on the Brexit issue. This was simply a technical decision based on British law.

Exactly. What I meant was how it should be implemented if it was to be implemented.

[pitrevie]

14 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The ruling was not about whether the result should be implemented, it was to do with how the result should be implemented, big difference.

 

Another factor that has been conveniently overlooked is para 1 of Article 50., and whether people like it or not withdrawal is subject to the requirements of the UK constitution.

 

1. “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

 

Gosh and there was I thinking that the despots in Brussels with their dictatorial EU law which "Trumps"  everything would not permit us to do any such thing.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, pitrevie said:

 

Gosh and there was I thinking that the despots in Brussels with their dictatorial EU law which "Trumps"  everything would not permit us to do any such thing.

It gets worse. This summer they changed the rules so that any country could stop treaty approval from going forward.  Those power-hungry despots!

[7by7]

19 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 The Conservative manifesto promised a referendum on EU membership with a straight remain or leave question; and they delivered on that pledge.

referendum

ˌrɛfəˈrɛndəm/  

noun

noun: referendum; plural noun: referenda; plural noun: referendums

1. a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision

 

Which is exactly what this was. A vote by the electorate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Note that in the name of our nation 'Great Britain and Northern Ireland' are geographical locations, not political entities. There is, after all, no political entity named Great Britain!

 

As well as England voting to leave, so did Wales.

 

But this was a vote by the whole of the UK, not individual parts of it. As a whole the electorate voted to leave.

 

You seem to be saying that those parts of the UK which voted to remain should not be dictated to by the majority who voted to leave.

 

I assume you include London in that as London voted to remain. To get even more local, as a whole the South East, where I live, voted to leave, the constituency where I live voted to remain. I, as an individual, voted to remain.

 

Am I being dictated to by the majority who disagree with me and voted accordingly? Yes; that is how democracy works!

 

As I said previously, whilst I believe that Parliament should approve the final agreement between the UK and the EU, I see no need for any agreement by Parliament to authorise the start of negotiations. The referendum result gave the government the mandate for that.

 

I am aware that the High Court, and therefore the law, says otherwise; but as Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist: ""If the law supposes that, the law is a ass—a idiot."

 

 

 

12 hours ago, cumgranosalum said:

This post demonstrates how so many Brexiteers fail to understand either  the workings of UK democracy or the significance of the referendum. it is based on assumptions rather than a true appreciation of what was actually going on - an attitude that proved to be a common denominator amongst the disparate factions of the "leave" campaign

 

Here are a couple of quotes from the HoC briefing paper available to MPs in June of 2015.....

 

" This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion, which then influences the Government in its policy decisions"

 

" The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented"

 

 - [HoC 3/6/2015]

Firstly, I have no idea why you seem to be labelling me a "Brexiteer!" Even if you have not read any of my previous posts on the subject, both before and after the referendum, I do clearly state in the post you have quoted that I voted to remain!

 

I also state that I accept the democratic decision of the UK electorate; whereas you, sir, are coming across as a Remoaner who does not and is desperately searching for any means to thwart it!

 

What you seem to fail to understand is that this ruling, and that of the Supreme Court should they agree, does not and will not say that the referendum result should be ignored; to cut to the bare bones it merely states that it should be confirmed by a vote in Parliament before Article 50 is triggered.

 

Secondly, it is true that, except in certain circumstances described by others previously, UK referenda are not constitutionally binding on the government nor parliament. But the government has a clear mandate from the people of the UK; they should follow up on that mandate; as Mrs May and her government fully intend to do.

 

 On the Andrew Marr show this morning Jeremy Hunt said that Parliament makes law; the government negotiates treaties. I agree with that, with the proviso that once the government has negotiated a deal it should then be up to Parliament to approve that deal or send the government back to the negotiating table.

 

11 hours ago, sandyf said:

You can spin it any way you want but it cannot be denied that the lack of respect for the devolved administrations and the rhetoric on immigration has caused divisions that are effectively beyond repair.

A few years ago it was the football hooligans that brought the country into disrepute but now with emergence of the brexit hooligan some of us are once again ashamed to be British.

If the rule of law is considered inappropriate then it should be changed, not abused, that is hooligan mentality.

 

The devolved administrations, by which I assume you mean the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and Welsh Assemblies,  have no legal or constitutional power or say over the UK's foreign policy. Even so, Mrs May has done them the courtesy of consulting them and has said she will continue to so do. How is that showing a lack of respect?

 

The rhetoric on immigration during the campaign from some on the Brexit side was outrageous, and much of it false.

 

Some of the comments directed at the judges are also outrageous; but here in the UK we have a free press and freedom of speech. You don't seem to care for that when people say things with which you disagree.

 

11 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Much of what you wrote is, of course, entirely correct in principle, which simply emphasises why the political entity that is the UK must be ended.

 

 

 

How would you break it up? As I said, the constituency where I live voted to remain. Should all those who did likewise leave the UK?

 

Looking across the pond; whoever wins next Tuesday, not all states will have voted for them Should those who voted for the loser demand to form a separate country with their preferred candidate as president?

Edited November 6, 2016 by 7by7