I must endorse that last line Jim. As commented in some of my previous threads, I have a continued sense of despair and frustration at there not being a second referendum on leaving Europe.
Leave politicians portentously state that the wishes of the people of Britain must be respected but they inflate the wish of a small majority of the people of GB, and totally dismiss a very great majority of the wish of the Scottish people. Furthermore, the average voter, in most of our populace, understood very little about the implications of leaving the EU. They were told lies, told little and were misled!!! There is a question of unlawfulness (yep, that word crops up again and again!!) attached to the leave campaign, a campaign that was allegedly heavily funded by so-called "dark money" with a shady organisation called Cambridge Analytica also exposed and challenged by a parliamentary investigative committee and filmed removing all damning evidence in boxes. The motives for leaving were questionable anyway - my simple explanation is that the UK establishment does not like anything "cramping their style"!
My understanding is that the referendum was advisory only but it was so badly managed by a govt/people who don't do referenda very often that they should've consulted officials in a country like Switzerland, the "referendum capital of the world", to glean proper ground rules incl the realisation that the result was not unanimous and therefore NO CHANGE would apply for obvious reasons!!! THE STATUS QUO WOULD PREVAIL AND A LONG TERM FIASCO WOULD BE AVOIDED AFTER GOOD ADVICE FROM SEASONED PRACTITIONERS OF REFERENDA AND HOW TO MANAGE THEM PROPERLY!!!
Three years have passed, even without the retrospective influence on the result of these factors mentioned. That is ample time for a normal unforced change of view among the voters.
I know it is a big wish but I feel that there should be 1. Far more scrutiny applied to referenda 2. A cap on monetary support 3. A neutral agency to inform and educate, to some extent, the voters about the specific issue of a referendum 4. A review of the proceedings after the vote and, if it is found to be grossly questionable or abusive, a re-run of the referendum after the negation of the result. Neutrality of the members of such a review agency could be assured by their own record of historical impartiality.
Leave politicians portentously state that the wishes of the people of Britain must be respected but they inflate the wish of a small majority of the people of GB, and totally dismiss a very great majority of the wish of the Scottish people. Furthermore, the average voter, in most of our populace, understood very little about the implications of leaving the EU. They were told lies, told little and were misled!!! There is a question of unlawfulness (yep, that word crops up again and again!!) attached to the leave campaign, a campaign that was allegedly heavily funded by so-called "dark money" with a shady organisation called Cambridge Analytica also exposed and challenged by a parliamentary investigative committee and filmed removing all damning evidence in boxes. The motives for leaving were questionable anyway - my simple explanation is that the UK establishment does not like anything "cramping their style"!
My understanding is that the referendum was advisory only but it was so badly managed by a govt/people who don't do referenda very often that they should've consulted officials in a country like Switzerland, the "referendum capital of the world", to glean proper ground rules incl the realisation that the result was not unanimous and therefore NO CHANGE would apply for obvious reasons!!! THE STATUS QUO WOULD PREVAIL AND A LONG TERM FIASCO WOULD BE AVOIDED AFTER GOOD ADVICE FROM SEASONED PRACTITIONERS OF REFERENDA AND HOW TO MANAGE THEM PROPERLY!!!
Three years have passed, even without the retrospective influence on the result of these factors mentioned. That is ample time for a normal unforced change of view among the voters.
I know it is a big wish but I feel that there should be 1. Far more scrutiny applied to referenda 2. A cap on monetary support 3. A neutral agency to inform and educate, to some extent, the voters about the specific issue of a referendum 4. A review of the proceedings after the vote and, if it is found to be grossly questionable or abusive, a re-run of the referendum after the negation of the result. Neutrality of the members of such a review agency could be assured by their own record of historical impartiality.