Would you vote Tory?

[B0ycey]

Sorry, mate.
Not me.

I've never voted for any politician.
The EU referendum is the only vote I've ever cast.

Relative to their opposition, I like the Tories.
But I don't like them enough to get out of bed and vote for them.
In fact I actively dislike them enough not to.

Fair enough Baff. I just remember you being a hardcore Brexiteer. Can't help to associate that to Toryism given the biggest Brexiteers I know also seem to be the Blueist hardliner Tory scum.

[Baff]

The referendum was legally binding in that if he ignored it he would have been slung out on his arse, which, come to think on it, he was. And if little Nick wins with Indy2 next year then that will be sealed, stamped and otherwise binding because the only court that counts is that of the electorate.

It's politically binding.
The authority to make and enforce laws depends solely on peoples willingness to accept it.
If you openly refuse the will of the people, you have no democratic legitimacy. The legality of your "laws" = zero.
The country reverts to an anarchy.

[Baff]

Yeah really. Embarrassment. Although post content means we can work out who sits where. You, Borky, T00ts, Cromwell, HallowedBrexit, Baff, Barry, Sheepy, Streetwalker... Tory voters. And what, one (you) has said you will. The only Non Tories on here are Pappy, Steve and me. And somehow we have four votes.

Sorry, mate.
Not me.

I've never voted for any politician.
The EU referendum is the only vote I've ever cast.

Relative to their opposition, I like the Tories.
But I don't like them enough to get out of bed and vote for them.
In fact I actively dislike them enough not to.

[morayloon]

Is that your best defence? It was my dodgy recollection? 😂
Cameron stated that the UK's decision would be respected, no dodgy recollection, just facts. On the other hand, Sturgeon has been told the exact opposite.

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

So you managed to find some evidence. Good for you. That doesn't mean that he was correct. It would have been for the courts to decide ...  if someone had the gumption to take the legal route. A 52-48 result was not conclusive and as i said Farage was ready and willing to challenge the result if it had gone the other way.
What was a conclusive result was the 62 -38 vote in Scotland for remaining. A vote which was ignored and we were dragged out of the EU by the weight of English numbers
Rest assured if a 52-48 result for Independence is the outcome of any future Indyref there will be a queue of people, led by the Brit Gov, who will be fighting to take legal action to stop it in its tracks.
PS
I found this article in which your hero Farage is reported to have said the Referendum was advisory https://www.connexionfrance.com/article/French-news/Brexit/Referendum-was-advisory-Farage
And your hero is mentioned in the Fact Check article I referred to previously "That's why Nigel Farage, for example, accepts that the referendum result was technically advisory only, but says that "I would now wish to see constitutional change to make referendums binding".
Here's another one "223.  We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion. (Para 197) https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldconst/99/9909.htm
The result, as I said, was not conclusive therefore it shouldn't have been carried without legally testing the case.
 

[B0ycey]

Is that your best defence? It was my dodgy recollection? 😂
Cameron stated that the UK's decision would be respected, no dodgy recollection, just facts. On the other hand, Sturgeon has been told the exact opposite.

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

His defence is that Cameron was wrong on a legal stance. We have a parliamentary democracy. The reason May couldn't get Brexit through was because Brexiteers kept on rejecting her negotiation despite it fulfilling the requirements of the referendum. If she had the mandate you implied that couldn't have happened.

[Nick]

Whatever you want to believe Brexit was an advisory referendum. If you have any proof to the contrary, let's have it (and your, dodgy, recollection of what Cameron said doesn't count). On the other side Farage was ready to dispute the result if it had finished 52% - 38% Remain. For whatever reason no one on the Remain side took up the fight.
Indyref2 is not underway (yet) but, yes, it will probably be advisory

Is that your best defence? It was my dodgy recollection? 😂 
Cameron stated that the UK's decision would be respected, no dodgy recollection, just facts. On the other hand, Sturgeon has been told the exact opposite. 

https://youtu.be/gUsKWsPcRXE

[morayloon]

What has legally bonding got to do with anything?
If you'd read properly I stated Cameron said it would happen if we voted leave, binding or not. Indy2 is not binding and you've been told it ain't happening, a big difference.

Whatever you want to believe Brexit was an advisory referendum. If you have any proof to the contrary, let's have it (and your, dodgy, recollection of what Cameron said doesn't count). On the other side Farage was ready to dispute the result if it had finished 52% - 38% Remain. For whatever reason no one on the Remain side took up the fight.
Indyref2 is not underway (yet) but, yes, it will probably be advisory

[Borchester]

Another one who doesn't read posted articles. If you did you'd have seen this 
The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding guided by "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy".

In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it "the people are not sovereign".

[Nick]

Another one who doesn't read posted articles. If you did you'd have seen this 
The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding guided by "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy".

In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it "the people are not sovereign".

What has legally bonding got to do with anything?
If you'd read properly I stated Cameron said it would happen if we voted leave, binding or not. Indy2 is not binding and you've been told it ain't happening, a big difference. 

[morayloon]

The referendum was legally binding in that if he ignored it he would have been slung out on his arse, which, come to think on it, he was. And if little Nick wins with Indy2 next year then that will be sealed, stamped and otherwise binding because the only court that counts is that of the electorate.

Another one who doesn't read posted articles. If you did you'd have seen this 
The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding guided by "basic constitutional principles of parliamentary sovereignty and representative parliamentary democracy".

In a parliamentary democracy, as barrister Rupert Myers bluntly puts it "the people are not sovereign".

[Borchester]

David Cameron could say anything he wanted to win over voters. The fact remains that a court of law found that it was legally binding

The referendum was legally binding in that if he ignored it he would have been slung out on his arse, which, come to think on it, he was. And if little Nick wins with Indy2 next year then that will be sealed, stamped and otherwise binding because the only court that counts is that of the electorate.

[morayloon]

David Cameron stated on numerous occasions that if we voted leave it would be enacted. The difference being, Sturgeon is stating that whatever the result nothing will change.

David Cameron could say anything he wanted to win over voters. The fact remains that a court of law found that it was legally binding

[Nick]

The article was laying out the pros & cons of the argument. If you had read the whole of it, instead of the first wee bit, you would have came to the following "The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding". So, there you have it, the English court decided and, interestingly, the ruling was not appealed (correct me if I am wrong).

David Cameron stated on numerous occasions that if we voted leave it would be enacted. The difference being, Sturgeon is stating that whatever the result nothing will change. 

[morayloon]

The referendum was not legally binding. [highlight]There's no one source that can prove this statement true [/highlight]

From your own link!!
Cameron told us this was the biggy, the once in a generation vote, same as you had. You, like the EU want to keep asking until you get the answer you like. As I've said many times, ask the whole of the U.K., you'll be out quicker than you know how to say "please can we rejoin the EU, now we've hot our independence we want to give it to you" 😂

If your comrade Tommy contacted Admin and said his Hail Mary's he'd be here to fight your corner with you.

The article was laying out the pros & cons of the argument. If you had read the whole of it, instead of the first wee bit, you would have came to the following "The High Court came to its conclusion that the referendum was not legally binding". So, there you have it, the English court decided and, interestingly, the ruling was not appealed (correct me if I am wrong).

[Nick]

I would vote Tory but Ollie and his commie friends have rigged the poll so that I can't vote.

That said, The other opinion polls now give the Brothers and Sisters twice as many votes as the Tories, which is good for Liz because now the only way is up

https://www.politico.eu/europe-poll-of-polls/united-kingdom/

Nothing stopping you voting old timer, if you can already see the results and one of them is in bold then you already voted and your old grey matter is leading you a merry dance!!