Nigel Farage warns 'Brexit betrayal' would thrust Britain into crisis - Polidicks

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128922]Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance.[/QUOTE] I really, [B][I]really[/I][/B] cannot understand how Brexit supporting lunatics think the EU is "slavery". We had a ludicrous amount of power over the institution. Our veto rights were single-handedly holding back numerous projects that other EU nations were totally ready for because "eww we don't like it". We were one of the very, very few (if not the only?) countries in the EU that retained our own currency despite having access to the numerous schemes usually reserved for those in the Eurozone. We had a fair shake more control over our borders than other EU countries due to the nature of being a fuckin' island. And all we really had to do in return was accept a reasonable amount of free movement (which we used the fuck out of too btw, just ask all our expats shitting up mainland Spain) and some basic fucking regulations on produce. The EU really didn't have anywhere near as much control over us as the real "Project Fear (headed by your messiahs Farage and Boris) would have you believe.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53128342]Loving how far Boilrig's line of argumentation has crumbled. There's no argument to be made on the so-called economic benefits of Brexit because every credible prediction says it's going to suck short- and long-term. But Boilrig is holding out for the ultra-beneficial mystery deal that he can't articulate what it is or how it would be achieved but you can't prove it won't happen! Unsurprisingly that failed to convince anyone who's even done the slightest bit of research. So he fell back to the democracy via majority argument but has been completely unable to consolidate that with the massive amount of disinformation spewed by the Leave campaign and the fact that a majority of people have seen the wolf in sheep's clothing for what it is and want a second referendum. Suddenly when people don't agree with Boilrig it's undemocratic to ask their opinion.... somehow. Not to mention his hilarious ignorance of how representative democracy even works in the UK. So left with no other credible argument he's started praising the "resolve" of these slimy, dishonest politicians who wanted this result in the first place and are repeatedly ignoring the pleas of the people they allegedly represent because god forbid they have to steer this bus away from the massive cliff they've set it towards. Can't let a little thing like democracy or financial ruin get in the way of the Brexit train. Boilrig is exactly the same as those politicians: He got what he wanted so nothing else matters. The repeated demolishing of his arguments and opinions and his resulting backpedaling and disappearance from threads where he's obviously outclassed in every conceivable angle just serves as continued proof of how Brexit has never had any solid reasoning or logic behind it, and requires a detachment from and denial of reality to purport. It's just pure narcissism. There is no circumstance under which Boilrig would reject Brexit because that's what he wanted. Feels before reals.[/QUOTE] I want to give you a medal for just completely owning Boilrig there. Nailed their behaviour to a tee

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53128922]Strawman argument, we didn't vote for slavery. Id argue that we voted against slavery in this instance. Choosing to ignore the majority is a form of dictatorship. If you do that, then you are no better than Putin. You mention stuck forever but we decided to Remain in the ECC in 1975 and that wasn't forever. So I guess in 30 years time will tell. Also I see you complain about fractional decisions and yet I bet I would never hear you complain if the party you voted for won a fractional election. Then you would laud it as a victory of the people right?[/QUOTE] Choosing to ignore the law is a dictatorship. I think the majority of Americans would be happy with eliminating all taxes but that'd be fucking idiotic so we don't do it

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128938]but you just acted like staying in the EU means being slaves to the EU? No, that's not true, that is a baseless assertion based on your fears and misinformation.[/QUOTE] Well we are obviously not slaves because we get to Leave. If there was no option to Leave, then the slavery opinion would be more valid. When the Dutch and Irish were forced to vote through the Lisbon Treaty after they rejected it that might be more in the line of slavery, vote until you get the right result. This is what extremist Remainers in my eyes want, a 'vote until we have what we demand'. Acting more like terrorists instead of decent human beings. And negotiating with terrorists is not on the table. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128938]The "Vote lasts forever" thing is a side effect of the mindset of people like Boilrig, another pro brexit poster around here. At least you're not using the same baseless scale of time.[/QUOTE] Nothing lasts forever, its a long time. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128938]It isn't the "fractional" portion that is the issue. It's the scale of that decision. Elections in Canada aren't decided on a 51-49% basis, and I frankly think that no decision should ever be made 51-49. So, please attempt to have your "Gotcha" moment, but it's baseless assumptive trash.[/QUOTE] It is possible to have a minority government however where they do not have a majority of the seats in Parliament. Canada has had twelve of those and the most recent one in 2008 and had 'the lowest voter turnout in Canadian electoral history, this represented only 22% of eligible Canadian voters, the lowest level of support of any winning party in Canadian history.' 22% of voter turnout is far lower than the 72.2% turnout in the Brexit Referendum. They also won 37.65% of the popular vote. One would say that Brexit at least has a majority of the popular vote and therefore far better than many Governments that have won with less than 50% of the popular vote. Elections in Canada can actually be decided on a 51/49% basis. Just because you don't think they should doesn't mean they cannot. If the incumbent loses on a 51% vote but wants to stay in power anyway that is the makings of dictatorship. [QUOTE=Instant Mix;53128958]sorry just to clarify, are you trying to argue that not going through with a misinformed and untrue shitshow of a referendum that had a 2% majority to massively change how our country worked, we're as bad as the Russian dictatorship? [/QUOTE] I only have your word that it will massively change. Not as bad as a Russian dictatorship but on the path when the entitled decide what, where and who. Wanting the minority of the popular vote to win is what led Trump into power. But feel free to argue for the Trump style of election victory.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53129181]Well we are obviously not slaves because we get to Leave. If there was no option to Leave, then the slavery opinion would be more valid. When the Dutch and Irish were forced to vote through the Lisbon Treaty after they rejected it that might be more in the line of slavery, vote until you get the right result. This is what extremist Remainers in my eyes want, a 'vote until we have what we demand'. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but this is quite literally, verbatim what Farage and Brexit wanted...? How is this an actual point you feel comfortable raising? [QUOTE] Acting more like terrorists instead of decent human beings. And negotiating with terrorists is not on the table.[/QUOTE] So you've stepped up to calling your own country men terrorists because they don't agree with you. You're not very stable IMO. [QUOTE] It is possible to have a minority government however where they do not have a majority of the seats in Parliament. Canada has had twelve of those and the most recent one in 2008 and had 'the lowest voter turnout in Canadian electoral history, this represented only 22% of eligible Canadian voters, the lowest level of support of any winning party in Canadian history.'[/QUOTE] Yes. Your point? Am I supposed to support that government(A minority conservative party that fucked with the entire nation for a number of years)? Is that your "GOTCHA"? Do you know that they were not a party that saw much support, right? So why is this your tool to explain to me why I'd support fractional representation, when I was actively victimized by said fractional representation? The fuck is your point? [QUOTE] 22% of voter turnout is far lower than the 72.2% turnout in the Brexit Referendum. They also won 37.65% of the popular vote. One would say that Brexit at least has a majority of the popular vote and therefore far better than many Governments that have won with less than 50% of the popular vote.[/QUOTE] Oh I see where you're going with this. You don't actually know. [QUOTE]Elections in Canada can actually be decided on a 51/49% basis. Just because you don't think they should doesn't mean they cannot. If the incumbent loses on a 51% vote but wants to stay in power anyway that is the makings of dictatorship.[/QUOTE] Holy crap you just don't get it, do you. [QUOTE]I only have your word that it will massively change. Not as bad as a Russian dictatorship but on the path when the entitled decide what, where and who.[/QUOTE] "IT'S FINE WHEN I DECIDE THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY BUT YOU'RE A COMMIE IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT FOR ME" The dissonance you display is mind boggling.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53129181] This is what extremist Remainers in my eyes want, a 'vote until we have what we demand'. Acting more like terrorists instead of decent human beings. And negotiating with terrorists is not on the table.[/QUOTE] Except that's literally a sentiment that came out of the leave camp back when ~leaving the EU!~ was just a source of endless relevance for otherwise unimportant shit stirrers like Nigel Farrage. You know, before they actually got the result they claimed to have wanted and promptly scurried away to hide. Can I also express how hilariously ironic the idea of an ~extremist remainer!~ is considering the last political assassination in the UK was carried out by a right wing nutcase leading up to the EU referendum. All things considered, perhaps attempting to paint people you disagree with as terrorists is a bad idea. Glass houses and all that.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53129181] I only have your word that it will massively change. Not as bad as a Russian dictatorship but on the path when the entitled decide what, where and who. Wanting the minority of the popular vote to win is what led Trump into power. But feel free to argue for the Trump style of election victory.[/QUOTE] No, i'm sorry, you don't only have my word that it would massively change, you've [URL="https://www.ifs.org.uk/uploads/publications/comms/r116.pdf"]plenty[/URL] [URL="https://www.economist.com/news/britain/21696517-most-estimates-lost-income-are-small-risk-bigger-losses-large-economic"]of[/URL] [URL="https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21697858-british-economy-would-be-neither-destroyed-nor-unleashed-leaving-eu-if"]studies[/URL] [URL="http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/brexit-ii"]and[/URL] [URL="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron"]reports[/URL] [URL="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hm-treasury-analysis-the-long-term-economic-impact-of-eu-membership-and-the-alternatives"]of[/URL] [URL="https://www.ft.com/content/e91b154c-cd11-11e6-864f-20dcb35cede2"]the[/URL] effect it would have on the economy as well as the clear and obvious disruption it would have to both EU citiziens residing in the UK and expats in other EU countries, oh and that Northern Ireland / Ireland issue, don't bullshit me with that garbage. I actually can't believe you are trying to compare this to Trump, what the actual hell are you on about? They are objectively completely different things, want to provide some evidence for that viewpoint?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53129197]So you've stepped up to calling your own country men terrorists because they don't agree with you. You're not very stable IMO.[/QUOTE] Is the guy that shot Jo Cox is a terrorist yes? He would be my countryman wouldn't he? I don't agree with shooting people who disagree with me in a non-destructive way. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53129197]explain to me why I'd support fractional representation, when I was actively victimized by said fractional representation? The fuck is your point? The dissonance you display is mind boggling.[/QUOTE] If the Labour party won a 51% vote for a minority government then you would wish for the Tories to stay in power? Because obviously a Labour government would devastate the country so I would have every right to demand a second election right? If you were a 'victim' of fractional representation then you wouldn't want a fractional decision like that to go ahead would you? I mean, you claim to not support fractional representation then you would wish the Tories to stay in power if they had lost to a 51-49% decision yes? Because if your answer is no then dissonance would equally apply to you.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53129241]Is the guy that shot Jo Cox is a terrorist yes? He would be my countryman wouldn't he? I don't agree with shooting people who disagree with me in a non-destructive way. If the Labour party won a 51% vote for a minority government then you would wish for the Tories to stay in power? Because obviously a Labour government would devastate the country so I would have every right to demand a second election right? If you were a 'victim' of fractional representation then you wouldn't want a fractional decision like that to go ahead would you? I mean, you claim to not support fractional representation then you would wish the Tories to stay in power if they had lost to a 51-49% decision yes? Because if your answer is no then dissonance would equally apply to you.[/QUOTE] You're still missing the key part of this. Brexit planned to push for as many votes as it needed to get it's way. How do you feel about that in context with what you've said

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53129241]Is the guy that shot Jo Cox is a terrorist yes? He would be my countryman wouldn't he? I don't agree with shooting people who disagree with me in a non-destructive way. If the Labour party won a 51% vote for a minority government then you would wish for the Tories to stay in power? Because obviously a Labour government would devastate the country so I would have every right to demand a second election right? If you were a 'victim' of fractional representation then you wouldn't want a fractional decision like that to go ahead would you? I mean, you claim to not support fractional representation then you would wish the Tories to stay in power if they had lost to a 51-49% decision yes? Because if your answer is no then dissonance would equally apply to you.[/QUOTE] Going to reply to my post or going to conveniently ignore it? PS. our current electoral system is FPTP, it's not actually a direct representation of people's views so a 51% vote wouldn't actually mean that 51% of people voted for it. Elections aren't binary, there are more than 2 parties, meaning if any party got 51%, any further parties would've got significantly fewer votes as that means 49% was spread between all other available parties, not a singular one. We decided that was how we would [B]elect political parties into power (and people including myself don't agree with it, but that's what it is for now)[/B], not how we deal with [B]non-binding referendums[/B], so your argument doesn't even make sense. Read up before you start trying to be smart. Nothing you just said there makes any sense in context

Britain is in crisis you knobhead. Things are worse than they've been for 30 years. And it was your idea. Fuck off back up Trump's arse. [editline]13th February 2018[/editline] Phew, that was sour of me. To be honest I don't think the country would be in that much trouble if we now voted to remain in the EU after all. The majority of leavers would realise things aren't actually that bad, and the alternative is worse, and the insurrection would fade back into extremist circles where it should be.

[QUOTE=Bathacker;53128342]Loving how far Boilrig's line of argumentation has crumbled. There's no argument to be made on the so-called economic benefits of Brexit because every credible prediction says it's going to suck short- and long-term. But Boilrig is holding out for the ultra-beneficial mystery deal that he can't articulate what it is or how it would be achieved but you can't prove it won't happen! Unsurprisingly that failed to convince anyone who's even done the slightest bit of research.[/QUOTE] The short term yes, the long term, we can only guess, but the 15 year forcasts by treasury isn't long term. I'm holding for the deal, but honestly, I'm unsure whether they will get it considering the shitstorm in the EU over their lead negoiators requests of the UK government to stand aside of all safeguards. [QUOTE=Bathacker;53128342] So he fell back to the democracy via majority argument but has been completely unable to consolidate that with the massive amount of disinformation spewed by the Leave campaign and the fact that a majority of people have seen the wolf in sheep's clothing for what it is and want a second referendum. Suddenly when people don't agree with Boilrig it's undemocratic to ask their opinion.... somehow. Not to mention his hilarious ignorance of how representative democracy even works in the UK.[/QUOTE] It isn't undemocratic to ask for their opinion, but from the start we know the majority won, with or without lies, comparable to an election campaign. Whether or not you think you some how don't have a representative democracy, you do. [QUOTE=Bathacker;53128342] So left with no other credible argument he's started praising the "resolve" of these slimy, dishonest politicians who wanted this result in the first place and are repeatedly ignoring the pleas of the people they allegedly represent because god forbid they have to steer this bus away from the massive cliff they've set it towards. Can't let a little thing like democracy or financial ruin get in the way of the Brexit train.[/QUOTE] Democracy isn't getting in the way, as once again, the majority rules, and the finanical ruin, where is that again, I'm not seeing this doomsday scenario anywhere. We however do know what happens if it falls to WTO and a rough idea of how many job losses will be on both sides, however the UK isn't going anywhere, neither is its place as the finanical center of Europe. [QUOTE=Bathacker;53128342] Boilrig is exactly the same as those politicians: He got what he wanted so nothing else matters. The repeated demolishing of his arguments and opinions and his resulting backpedaling and disappearance from threads where he's obviously outclassed in every conceivable angle just serves as continued proof of how Brexit has never had any solid reasoning or logic behind it, and requires a detachment from and denial of reality to purport. It's just pure narcissism. There is no circumstance under which Boilrig would reject Brexit because that's what he wanted. Feels before reals.[/QUOTE] I've barely seen my arguments demolished, most of the time they aren't even challenged and this like this thread, those arguments are brought up again, at this point I could probably just copy and paste thread to thread until someone can prove me wrong otherwise. [QUOTE=fulgrim;53128535]Can someone please explain how having a second referendum is [I] less[/I] democratic?[/QUOTE] As a really rough and fast version, a 2nd referendum on the deal itself wouldn't be able to contain the clause to rejoin the EU, as that would probably violate the electoral commisions rules surrounding them, you'd end up with a 'Take the Deal' 'Go back and renegotiate'. [QUOTE=Zonesylvania;53128618]Also here's the fun part: this whole referendum, with all the shitstorms going on behind it, was also [I]non-binding[/I] and one side didnt even get a 2/3 majority, which should've triggered another referendum until you got the necessary vote. But the Tories don't want, and aren't interested, in proper Democratic process. [/QUOTE] As explained in an earlier thread, it was essentially binding in the way it was presented to the people, so non-binding is just an old meme that has run out of steam. The majority thing sure, but they didn't add it in. It seems the Tories are the only ones interested in the democratic process, but atleast Labour leadership has sided with them. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128804]I do love how you've had to give up every shred of argumentation that would lead us to believe this is for the best, like you used to argue. Now you just scramble to call anyone who disagrees with you an antidemocratic type.[/QUOTE] I haven't, I've just moved on from those topics when 2nd referendums etc weren't actually being discussed this commonly. I could easily just spout on about how Cameron knew he had to leave due to the disagreements he had with the EU, as well as Germany refusing to allow him to use the emergency handbrake on immigration, probably the euro was coming down the pipe at some point as well, which would've truely fucked things over. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128815]Oh, that's another juicy one that Boilrig literally hasn't been able to parse out If the Brexit referendum has to be honoured to have a democracy, then shouldn't the same be true of the scottish referendum that people like Boilrig handwave away as fast as they can? It's pretty funny the level of dissonance some people talk themselves into.[/QUOTE] If the Scottish want to leave so be it, but they know now they can't get into the EU, and no country is going to accept them in at the deficit levels they are at. People talk about finanical ruin for the UK leaving the EU, for Scotland it would be a reality. [QUOTE=hexpunK;53128851]Honestly wouldn't be shocked if he spends his time on the BBC Have Your Say comment section tbh, that kind of shit has run rampant over there for a while now. A bunch of old fucks or young """"reactionaries""""""" calling everything they disagree with "undemocratic" or insisting that Corbyn is a hardcore communist (despite the fact he doesn't necessarily disagree with Brexit but hey! He's a ~loony lefty~~~~!!). Nothing Boilrig has ever posted in these stands out as an original thought or something that's had a mote of actual research put into it. Just soundbites from whatever right leaning news source of the week he decides to cite. Again, for emphasis. [B]Farage and his band of goobers insisted they could call referendums until they got the result they wanted.[/B] Sure sounds like they're trying to ~subvert democracy~ there huh guys?[/QUOTE] I mostly stick to Reuters. [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53128913]So 51% vote to have slavery. Now that's the rule of the land forever. Can't change it or you're going against democracy, amiright? Same thing. Votes being decided by a fractional percentage of the population to make a decision that effects everyone, that's stuck forever if you're taking the Boilrig approach to democracy.[/QUOTE] If 51% can form a government, it can choose the direction of the country. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Failed to cite sources. Was warned." - Kiwi))[/highlight]

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53129707]Whether or not you think you some how don't have a representative democracy, you do.[/QUOTE] I've explained to you why the UK system is unrepresentative time and again now. Why do you keep on ignoring what we say? Are you incapable of conceptualizing anything that doesn't reinforce your own narrative? [editline]14th February 2018[/editline] [Quote]I've barely seen my arguments demolished, most of the time they aren't even challenged[/quote] [I]Holy fucking shit[/I] you deserted the other Brexit thread when you evidently didn't have any valid point in our argument, you deliberately ignore my bringing it up in this thread, and you have the gall to say this shit? Coward.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53129861] [I]Holy fucking shit[/I] you deserted the other Brexit thread when you evidently didn't have any valid point in our argument, you deliberately ignore my bringing it up in this thread, and you have the gall to say this shit? Coward.[/QUOTE] He's a generic Polidicks regular. You're giving him what he wants by continuing it here.

I still don't understand Boilrigs agenda. He's from NZ and yet defends Brexit more than some pro-brexit voters.

[QUOTE=arleitiss;53130439]I still don't understand Boilrigs agenda. He's from NZ and yet defends Brexit more than some pro-brexit voters.[/QUOTE] My theory is that he just really really hates the UK

[QUOTE=fulgrim;53130948]My theory is that he just really really hates the UK[/QUOTE] Maybe he has hots on Farage?

Boilrig is a self-admitted imperialist. Assuming he isn't just trolling the lot of us, he genuinely believes that Brexit will pave the way for the resurrection of the British Empire.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;53129255] Brexit planned to push for as many votes as it needed to get it's way. How do you feel about that in context with what you've said[/QUOTE] This is generally how elections and referendums work, its hardly uncommon knowledge. Every political party pushes for votes and all of them make predictions. For example John McDonnell says that [QUOTE]nationalising services would cost nothing[/QUOTE]. Most human beings would know that is bullshit, there is always a cost. That is an example of pushing right there. People certainly don't push to get the lowest numbers. They [Brexiteers] pushed and got the votes because they cared more, the Remainer side didn't care as much therefore they lost. You can either go with the people who give a damn or you can go with those who don't. I feel fine with it knowing that the parties have followed the rules of the system and that a coalition Government was produced. Just like how the Tories produced a coalition with the Lib Dems in 2010. I may not like the Lib Dems too much but I accepted the coalition. [QUOTE=Instant Mix;53129260]our current electoral system is FPTP, it's not actually a direct representation of people's views so a 51% vote wouldn't actually mean that 51% of people voted for it. Elections aren't binary, there are more than 2 parties, meaning if any party got 51%, any further parties would've got significantly fewer votes as that means 49% was spread between all other available parties, not a singular one.[/QUOTE] You are making the assumption that people WOULD vote for the smaller parties or that there would be smaller parties. A 51% victory would more likely happen in the US elections but a two party system is the laziest form of democracy so I wouldn't advocate it. If at the end everything is added up you still get 100^% therefore the maths do not lie, there is a possibility albeit how small, that you can get 51%. Like the US Elections, here there were two choices but unlike the US Elections, this vote was fairer in that the majority is the winner? Trump won because it was the states who decided the victor, not the electorate. Do you honestly advocate that areas should decide the victor over the electorate? [QUOTE]Things are worse than they've been for 30 years.[/QUOTE] No I think 30 years ago when the USSR still existed were far worse. No forums too.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53132978]Do you honestly advocate that areas should decide the victor over the electorate?[/QUOTE] But that's exactly what FPTP in the UK does? Except on a parliamentary level rather than a presidential one. That's the entire point, parliament distribution doesn't reflect the electorate because of the threshold effect that results from the elections being done at the local level rather than the national one. It's the exact same phenomenon that US parties exploit when they gerrymander.

[QUOTE=DeadWar;53132978] You are making the assumption that people WOULD vote for the smaller parties or that there would be smaller parties. A 51% victory would more likely happen in the US elections but a two party system is the laziest form of democracy so I wouldn't advocate it. If at the end everything is added up you still get 100^% therefore the maths do not lie, there is a possibility albeit how small, that you can get 51%. Like the US Elections, here there were two choices but unlike the US Elections, this vote was fairer in that the majority is the winner? Trump won because it was the states who decided the victor, not the electorate. Do you honestly advocate that areas should decide the victor over the electorate?[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? You can't just make up some entirely unrealistic or implausible example and use it as a valid argument. We don't have a two party system here, so why are you trying to use it as an argument? Nobody is saying that it doesn't add up to 100% what on earth are you talking about, I like how you didn't mention anything about my previous post nor the fact that 51% of votes in an elections is not necessarily 51% of the population voting for something. Sorry, unlike the US the vote was fairer? Any particular evidence for that or just going to make that up? Not like there was potential voter fraud, misinformation and gerrymandering in that... Where are you getting these bits of information I haven't even talked about and attempted to use it to kerb my argument when it literally makes no sense - stop bringing up the trump admin and stop trying to claim I'd be advocating that, that's complete bullshit and not at all relevant to whTs at hand.

[QUOTE=Boilrig;53127070]Wrong campaign, that was Boris and his bus.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-referendum-nigel-farage-nhs-350-million-pounds-live-health-service-u-turn-a7102831.html"]That's funny.[/URL] [QUOTE=Boilrig;53128196]71% voted, higher than a general election. Yes, there will always be regret, and unfortunately, [B]lies. It is not enough reason to backout[/B], if they wanted to do that, Cameron should've stated that immediately.[/QUOTE] Who are you to decide that? When the possibility exists that the lie entrapped a vote (a vote which succeeded by a small margin) at the least consideration should be given in mind to those who voted not to leave. This country's had enough of lies between parasites both in and outside of government.