I haven't looked at the BBS in years as I didn't like the format so have no way of knowing but you may well be right. I wouldn't want a left wing biased debate any more than this right wing dominated one. I prefer one where views can be exchanged in a more balanced way.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Help me out then.

As I understand it national referendums are rarely used in British politics but when they are, they have to be instigated by Parliament deciding to effectively hand over a specific decision with the wording having to be part of the legislation.

And with regards to the June 23rd referendum, the majority of MP's in favour was overwhelming. Not a close-run thing.

So we have a simple question. Leave or Remain. Along with a pledge from the Government of the time that the vote will be honoured as well as numerous senior politicians from the range of all strands of political thought mirroring that. And absolutely nothing about Leave requiring a deal with the EU.

The vote is held and then counted. 52% of people vote for the UK to leave.

On the basis of that, Parliament, once again by a huge majority, agree to start the process for leaving.

Then we have a general election. And about 80% of votes cast are done so for two political parties both promising to honour the result on June 23rd.

You keep on saying that circumstances are not the same anymore but what has actually fundamentally changed?

Now whether you feel referendums are right or wrong is an irrelevance. Parliament decided to hold the one on June 23rd and subsequently started the process by which that result would be implemented. And an election fought on the basis, by the two main parties, that they would honour that.

Surely if one of those parties wishes to no longer do that then the correct course of action is to hold another general election as opposed to another referendum which you claim to loathe so much?

And if another is held, surely it would have zero credibility given that the result of the first one, in contrast to every other national referendum before that, failed to be implemented? How could you honestly convince people that this time around it would be different? Or am I missing something glaring here? Is my logic wrong?

Edited by Matov (18 Sep 2019 10.44pm)

Edited by Matov (18 Sep 2019 10.45pm)

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Tick Tock.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

You really are making a tit of yourself here.

You realise that just because he’s not involved in the day to day running doesn’t stop him being an active member and taking a profit share right?

Edited by DanH (19 Sep 2019 6.45am)

Reading what you were responding to is exactly why I responded to you in the first place. Even the article you posted yourself backs up my point.

1) Do you acknowledge that, whether his stake is in blind trust or not, he remains an active LLP member of that business?

2) That even by being in blind trust, with a sizeable stake and intimate knowledge of how the business is run, that he knows that he can still directly influence markets with political decisions?