(27-06-2016 06:59 )The Silent Majority Wrote: [ -> ]^ And there's a second flaw in his logic. If he wants to factor in the people who don't vote, then there isn't a mandate to leave in the first place. Since only 37% of the people who were eligible to vote actually voted for it.
In the last general election the turn out was 66.4%. some say 66.1%, Cameroon took 36.1% of the results, ignoring that the majority of the UK didn't vote for him, we will move on.
In 2015 there was 44,722,000 who voted in the general election, for the referendum, 46,501,241
http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationan...foruk/2015
and
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_re...um/results
Cameroon received 11,334,576 of the popular vote in the general election (barely a quater of the popular vote)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kin...tion,_2015
The leave votes received 17,410,742 of the popular vote, being a 70% turnout; see BBC results above.
The leave voters had 6,076,166 MORE votes than was recieved by the serving Prime minister who wanted to remain.
There was an overall win of around a million more votes to leave than stay.
Assume the remain vote is the same, they didn't change their minds.
Lets assume the libs manifesto was based heavily on leading the UK back to in the EU (or any prespective government that stand's). Lets assume 3 million more people NOW wanted vote to remain, or changed their minds and voted to stay that didn't before, thereby that vote swayed to the remain. Lets assume the winning party (libs) pretty much got the same amount of votes has Cameron did in the last general election WITH the additional 3 million votes, giving the elected government 14,344,576 votes that would STILL mean there were 3,066,166 more who voted to leave the EU in the country than voted for the now serving government.
There would now be more people in the country that voted out than remain of course, but not all for the serving government, as clearly was the case with Cameroon.
My point remains.