Weird that you dispute my claims. The only reference I think you could be referring to is the ‘be leave’ allegations, the title of your post. Guess what:
“If I meant "unlawful" or "invalid", I would have used those words. I did not call the referendum or its results unconstitutional.
In my very first post, in the third sentence, I said both sides of the campaign were misinformed. It is the second time you accused me of "only on the leave side though", and the second time I corrected you”
The you accept it is enshrined in law and it is to be enacted. That is very different to the tone you have used in the first half of this thread.
Then you consider the facts that remain spent twice the money of leave, you accept that a leaflet from the government (remain supporting at the time) was sent to every household in the U.K. with a very pro remain message. I frankly do not care if you cannot or are are too lazy to come to a decision and need to quantify the push factors into data when the bias of opinion was so obvious.
We keep going round in circles, but you are looking for utopian democracy that does not or has not ever existed. People need to sieve through and decide for themselves. It is not perfect but democracy is certainly the best system we have. I would love 100% truth in a democratic campaign from all sides, but there are massive problems, who decides what is truth without bias or conflicts of interest. In the case of the EU to speak out is a risk because of the status quo and gravy train and therefore truely amazing that leave won. After the fact just as in the case of the EUro currency and ERM these same people come out and try and spin that they were against it all along. Herding, the simple principle of herding.
No I didn't mean Darren Grimes, but Elizabeth Bilney (Leave.EU) and David Alan Halsall (Vote Leave).
I did not accept that it is enshrined in law. I did accept that it is to be enacted, as David Cameron committed to honor the otherwise constitutionally non-binding referendum, and Theresa May invoked Article 50, after Parliament gave her permission to do so.
I don't know if remain spent twice as much as leave, or if they sent a leaflet to every household. I also don't know if a very pro remain message is necessarily misinformation.
It’s either lawfull or unlawfull, so which one in your opinion is it?