Our thugs don't do lynchings; they do after dark beatings and stabbings.

It's hard to read, but there is so much of it about. I did see a Facebook group about leaving the EU or something and every comment is cringe-worthy. Some are pure racist, but the others are so dumb you wonder how these people can make it through the day (stuff like "...now we stop paying the EUs all are (sic) money we can be the greatest nation again...".

I see the reaction as a good thing in all seriousness. These people exist and they always have. Yes certain events (terrorism mainly) can magnify things but even when I was a kid you had the BNP getting votes. At least this shows who these people are and nobody can pretend there isn't a significant underclass of pure filth.

Things are also looking good, not total darkness:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...erendum-brexit

This was posted and discussed earlier. It's not clear either way.

Cameron won't do it, it's 'on' his successor, probably Boris, and, after meeting that angry crowd outside his front door on Friday morning, Boris doesn't want to do it either.

You never heard the term someone came out of nowhere to win actually meaning not that the person was not known (after all why did i also add Trump if i meant that thing, he was also very well known for decades as a celebrity but seen as a joke to make it therefore winning comes out of nowhere). I mean out of nowhere in the probability sense. As in what chance has this idiot to get elected and then boom he wins twice.

It is not the person that comes out of nowhere as in not known to people, its their probability damn it if voters were remotely intelligent. Ding Ding anyone home? This is why i said dont underestimate them etc.

Lol Boris should have chinned one of those angry hipsters, popularity rating up 20%

You were a toddler in 2000 and have no idea what you are talking about.

Bush was sitting governor of third-largest state, son of a President, was the GOP front runner from the beginning, and came in when country was weary of ClintonIan controversies. He had more than a fluke chance to win. Every indicator the entire cycle suggested it would be a close battle at worst. Your memory of watching the news in your diapers is clouded. There is no real similarity to Bush 2000 and Trump 2016. But keep the hot takes from SMP coming. You are showing again how non smart you are on subjects you know little about.

From this time in June 2000:

Boris is part of the metropolitan elite, connected to investment banks and hedge funds. There's no way he's taking the UK out of the EU if there's any alternative at all.

A question for the Remain voters who obviously do not agree with democracy and want the government to ignore the majority vote in the referendum.

Exactly at what point do you accept the majority will of the voters? 60/40, 70/30, 80/20, never?

I'm genuinely interested at what point the majority is enough.

On a separate note how many of you actively campaigned for the remain side, knocked on doors, spread the word, raised the arguments?

Instead of crying on this forum and saying everyone is old, everyone is stupid, everyone is racist, everyone is wrong (except you obviously) you could have put more effort in trying to win the vote. That may have required you leaving your keyboard though.

Sorry, somehow missed it even if trying to keep up. But seeing her determination on CNN in live pictures (backed up with the 62% of votes) made me think it will be Scotland which saves all of this.

London is probably eager to play the Scottish card too, there are a lot of guys in London waiting for an opportunity, backed up with sixty-something % of the votes too. They could say 'We need to keep the UK united' when they really mean 'Could care less, but I want us to be in the EU'. Effective anyway.

Scotland may be the catalyst for a happy ending.

I wonder what Boris actually wanted / expected. I always kind of assumed he saw this as the only way to ever lead the Tory party - either because he gets so much exposure and they lose the referendum, but the Tory party know he'll get lots of right wing votes in any election so he becomes a prime candidate in waiting, or they actually win and he knows Cameron can't see out his term. But, he must have known that things would crumble and he'd risk being a huge social pariah if they actually won and he was seen as responsible. It's not like he could have believed the banal rhetoric of the campaign.

No problem, and I think that's what the major players will be hoping. Posts #2406 onwards are interesting.

As I said before, he got out maneuvered by (of all people) Cameron, who had said that if he lost the referendum he'd immediately invoke Article 50, but then changed his mind on Friday and dumped that onerous task onto his successor.

Thing is there are now massive downsides to not Brexiting.

Massive downsides.

Who is ignoring the results is your PM. If he just started the procedure... we where talking about other stuff here.
I agree with you. Your PM should start the procedure ASAP and be pressure by the leaven campaign.
But is that happening?
Why not?

He expected to lose, but knew that being the face of the Leave campaign and being seen as tough on Europe would be a sure-fire vote winner when he inevitably competed for the Tory leadership. Winning the vote has knackered it all up for him, especially with Cameron coming straight out and declaring that he won't press the article 50 self-destruct button himself.

It's kind of hard to imagine this mindset, but it does seem to be the theory that fits best with what's happened.

Wonder what % of Leave voters understand the article 50 issue?

1 or 2?

Oh I think that's certainly why Boris chose to represent Out after such a delay.

You dont want to get it and you assume all kinds of idiotic things about my age in 2000 too lol. Trump was also leading during almost all this selection cycle. It is still out of nowhere in the sense that if you spend a little time and study the person (early on, not before the elections damn it) you ignore the polls and say to yourself this idiot will fail eventually, its inevitable with such bs knowledge he has on important topics such ridiculous character and general intellect that eventually they will see through it. Many pundits almost said that about Trump ignoring the leads he had for months.

And yet that is exactly the point i was making. The people do not see through it , they eventually make it all look like a virtue the more ignorant and idiotic a candidate is. One day you may get what i meant and why it is very consistent as presented with the concept of out of nowhere as it would appear not to a cynical seasoned political analyst that takes into account the stupidity and problems of the people voting but one observer that "naively" or idealistically wants to imagine that people will see the idiocy and declares like hell this guy will win eventually, they will see through it. And yet they dont, they like them even better for that. To this person these candidates really win out of nowhere.

Now lets stop this irrelevant tangent.

People deserve the politicians they get. If they were better they wouldn't have such morons for leaders. To a rational person that wants to believe in a better world too many of them come out of nowhere. On the other hand people like eg Nixon, Kennedy, Clinton, Obama etc didnt come out of nowhere in that sense. They had a charisma and life long effort of quality that was immediately evident.

Yup they really don't like each other. I think Cameron realised he was screwed, so figured if he was going, he'd try to take Boris with him.

Because nobody wants to do it. And Art.50 is only triggered by a constitutionally binding procedure in the member state, and in the United Kingdom a referendum is not constitutionally binding.

Please take it to another thread or PM?

This whole Brexit maneuvering is like Cruel Intentions for political theater.

Love Cameron ****ing over the next PM by not invoking 50