the snail
Active Member
I meant 60% of the vote.
But you knew that, and you don’t get a 52/27 split in a two way vote anyway.
By that logic,leave got 38% in 2016.
I meant 60% of the vote.
But you knew that, and you don’t get a 52/27 split in a two way vote anyway.
That is entirely normal for the Express.
By that logic,leave got 38% in 2016.
No. They didn’t.
No. They didn’t.
37.4% ?
Go on, explain your self because leave got 51.89% and remain got 48.11% of the votes.
Of the voting population, I think.
Often for constitutional change, referenda need 60% of registered voters to vote for the change, not of those who actually vote. Had Cameron not been so blasé/slapdash about it all, he might have not made it a simple majority of those voting, given the magnitude of the change.
Of the voting population, I think.
Often for constitutional change, referenda need 60% of registered voters to vote for the change, not of those who actually vote. Had Cameron not been so blasé/slapdash about it all, he might have not made it a simple majority of those voting, given the magnitude of the change.
Go on, explain your self because leave got 51.89% and remain got 48.11% of the votes.
but not of all votes. That was the percentage of votes cast. If you go by the percentage of the electorate, on 37.4% of the population wanted to leave. Not voting is apathy. People who are apathetic support the status quo. Therefore we did Brexit because just over a third of the population wanted to try it.
We should either have mandated voting or asked for at least a 60% result. Anything lower is not strong enough to support the consequence. As we have seen.
In the Telegraph today. Shame he can't spell 'minuscule', as an emeritus professor at Cambridge. But maybe that's Cambridge for you...
View attachment 17732
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/10/12/why-i-fear-brexit-could-be-lost-for-britain/