Referendum rules should be this...

Say in the case of remain or leave the EU...

I think that the vote should only be cast by those wishing to leave. 

So... wish to remain stay at home. Wish to change vote. 

That way you have a 100% turnout of sorts. 

The current scheme/party/rules etc. should be assumed to be continuing as it was before unless more than 50%  of the voting population go out and vote to change it. 

As it stands on 35% of the population asked for a change.  Is that really enough? 

This can apply to any referendum or even elections. 

The rules are:  staying at home IS casting a vote to keep things the same...

Yeah.......this.

Parliamentary Democracy's had its day and it's time for change.

I'm pissed and Biggie's on god only knows what but that feels like a mandate to me.

Come on, Reform Party......gizza bell.

We can work together and sort this mess out.

Britain First!

There is genuine eisdom in this... 

I will make 2 quick points. 
In the USA for example in this kind of vote things only change if there is a clear majority over 66%. If it is less things stay as they are. 

Also. In this country a referendum is not a "result" as in binding. It is an advisory to parliament on how to go forward. In my opinion this advisory simply shows that the vote was split practically equally.

Just keep having votes until you get the outcome you want...

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Just keep having votes until you get the outcome you want...

Like a democratic outcome for example?

That's already happened.

I can't agree with Biggie on this. The right not to vote is set in stone and can only be seen as 'abstention' not as support for or against a particular person, party or issue.

The fact is 72% of those eligible to vote did so and the majority of those voted to Leave. Yes they were wrong in my opinion but they won and the question is now closed by the expressed will of the people. I believe if you start saying "not voting means you support the status quo" you're stepping onto an incredibly dangerous and slippery path. For example, if there's only 50% turnout at the next General Elction (a real possibility imo) does that mean all those who stayed home must be taken to have voted Tory because they are the current government? If that happened under current rules the Tories would get about 600 of the 651 seats. Are you sure you want to open that possibility biggie because I certainly don't.

If I had the power I would do more to accomplish two things. Firstly to impose more honesty from politicians and campaigners so the public get a fair chance to make a decision based on the facts rather than rhetoric and second, to engage the many millions who have chosen to abstain not just in the referendum but in several elections over the last thirty years in particular. We're seeing an alarming number of people who are convinced it doesn't matter because their vote won't change anything and that number has been steadily rising for much of my lifetime. In particular council and European elections have had some truly appalling turnouts and that needs to be turned around somehow.

I am willing to take that risk LLP.

Or perhaps voting should be compulsory. With the option to vote abstain.

wanderlust wrote:

BoltonTillIDie wrote:Just keep having votes until you get the outcome you want...

Like a democratic outcome for example?

People are a little bit mistaken about what the referendum means in any case.

We have democratically elected leaders who we choose to run the country. We now leave it up to those leaders to decide whether or not leaving the EU would be good for the country. The referendum was a vote to advise those leaders on how the voters in the country feel.

We have elected leaders for a reason.
If we let the masses decide everything it might be democratic, but it would end in a right mess. The majority of people don't have enough knowledge on which to base an opinion on. And I include me in that.

If the mob ruled by referendum we might well see things like public beatings or hangings for pedos or capital punishment for other crimes being voted in. We would end up with all sorts of laws for holiday pay, how long a weekend should be. We have an elected body to make the decisions for a very good reason blah bla..

Spot on.

Some very good points there Biggie. I agree with the majority of what you've posted here.

I think the leaders got put in their place by Farage and co, now we're out of Europe there will be nobody coming over here, plus more money going on the NHS.

Don't forget, half of Cameron's party wanted to leave, so the government was even spilt.

Ask the audience is always a good lifeline.

scottjames30 wrote:now we're out of Europe there will be nobody coming over here, plus more money going on the NHS.

Only one word can describe that sentence - Bollocks.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:now we're out of Europe there will be nobody coming over here, plus more money going on the NHS.

Only one word can describe that sentence - Bollocks.

Well time will tell, but I'd rather go this way, than the stagnant swamp cutting the NHS to bits, Gove has said he's stopping free movement and putting money into the NHS if elected .

Gove has said previously that he doesn't have what it takes to be PM and if that's what he thinks then there's no hope. Gove is clueless and would be a disaster.

It depends on what you think would be disaster ?

scottjames30 wrote:It depends on what you think would be disaster ?

Not being able to negotiate any sort of beneficial deals regarding trade, taking the economy down the shitter, major job losses due to the previous mentioned reason, zero rights for workers etc etc.

I'm not sure where this 'zero rights for workers' image of how Britain was prior to joining in the EU came about - if anything is was the exact opposite - the trade unions ruled!

They brought about the 3 day week which brought about the collapse of the Heath government (Conservatives) and a few years later brought about 'the winter of discontent' and the Callaghan government (Labour).

Ok that happened in the early years after we had just joined the EU but it just shows the power the unions had at the time.

Bwfc1958 wrote:

scottjames30 wrote:It depends on what you think would be disaster ?

Not being able to negotiate any sort of beneficial deals regarding trade, taking the economy down the shitter, major job losses due to the previous mentioned reason, zero rights for workers etc etc.

Hahaha, we can now trade with the rest of the world, finding the best deals for us.

Zero rights for workers was as bad as it could get anyway, sports direct etc etc.

Not to mention Australia want to be at the front of the queue, fighting New Zealand to do trade.