Originally Posted by aurichie:
“As above. If brexiteers had secured a mandate by winning an actual majority of votes from the total of all eligible voters then I would not be supporting a second referendum or any attempt to block brexit.
Big change via referendum should always carry a minimum number of votes, or percentage of eligible voters to be effectuated. Our side was not for big change, therefore remain would not and never should have been required to hit the same numbers. You may argue this is unfair, but it is the referendum rules must countries abide by when putting big policy decisions to a public vote.
For big change to be actioned enough people must support it, and definitely not a minority among all eligible voters would have been enough anywhere else in the world.”
“As above. If brexiteers had secured a mandate by winning an actual majority of votes from the total of all eligible voters then I would not be supporting a second referendum or any attempt to block brexit.
Big change via referendum should always carry a minimum number of votes, or percentage of eligible voters to be effectuated. Our side was not for big change, therefore remain would not and never should have been required to hit the same numbers. You may argue this is unfair, but it is the referendum rules must countries abide by when putting big policy decisions to a public vote.
For big change to be actioned enough people must support it, and definitely not a minority among all eligible voters would have been enough anywhere else in the world.”
So I take it had Remain won on the same figures Leave did you would have been fully understanding and supportive for Leave to have demanded a second vote as the percentage was not a majority of all voters ?
And I take it you will be wanting second, third , fourth votes etc for all elections from now on where there is not a 100% turnout and the winning party/person does not receive a majority from all those who voted.
”
