that is what gerrymandering is

It's also flawed because it does not provide representation in terms of seats to the party that lost.

I suppose, yeah when looking at the definition

Usually there's attached connotation to it, so I don't use it

Actually, I'll argue it *kinda* isn't in some cases

ok.
So what about my next point.
Which parties do you define as leave and which are remain?

For example, UKIP gained ~13% of the vote, but only 1 seat in parliament, BUT the district boundaries weren't manipulated in anyway, so it wasn't *really* gerrymandering

In 2017, Labour, SNP, Lib Dems and SF were de facto pro-remain and the Tories, DUP and UKIP were pro-leave

Looking though the 2017 labour manifesto it say that "Labour accepts the referendum result".
It mentions a *Brexit deal*
So the **intent** on leaving is there. Just that the methods that Labour intend to use are so shoddy.

> It mentions a Brexit deal
A deal which would see us remain in the Customs Union.. For which the EU has stated, that the other EU institutions must be accepted.

So that means. Free movement of people and labour and the EU courts

So that's why I said they're de facto pro-remain.

I agree they are de facto.
But I imagine it's Labour's way of trying to sit on the fence and appeal to both camps.
Something they are still trying to do now.

Now they're fully pro-remain. They're offering a deal they will never get, so will be stuck with ~~Mays~~ Boris's deal; which they will take to the people, since a majority don't support it, remain will win.

labour is stuck between the champagne socialists, the marxists, and the working class theyre supposed to represent

And everything will be overturn.
So just like what the establishment wants

Yep

Both the people and establishment want to remain 🤷

>The establishment want to remain
FIFY

no, the people want parliament to do what they were asked

And looking at the vast-amount of polls and the results of 2017, the people too 😉

Your points that you keep presenting as your evidence that "the people" want to remain is:
1. Polling data.
2. 2019 EU elections.
3. The 2017 General Election.

My rebuttal to your first point is that polls don't ask the entire country as a referendum does.
How is overturning a question put to the entire country based on the evidence of a poll that only... say... 1000 people. (I doubt polls get past the 10,000 mark)

For the second point. Looking at the turnout for the EU elections. It is about 50.66%
And it's been hovering about low 40% for years.
So it looks like people don't really care about EU elections in this country.
In essence this goes back to my first point. Why does can an election with a turnout of 50.66% be seen as something that can overturn a referendum with 72.21% turnout?

Now for the 2017 General Election.
I'm not going to bother getting into the quagmire that is Labour's brexit position.
However I am going to mention that the 2016 referendum was simply a question of leave vs remain.
There are were no other policies mentioned. There was no "leader of remain" that we were voting in.
But in **General** Elections. You were voting in for party that is shaped by their leaders, polices and optics.
May was a bloody horrible leader, with a terrifying manifesto. And Labour's deliberate fence sitting obviously courted both leavers and remain.
In all, you can't really use the GE as there was a lot more stuff muddying the waters.

But it does boil down to one thing.
For a democracy to work. The losers have to accept then they have lost.
Otherwise if the losers keep trying to reverse the result. You end up with confusion.
Which is no way to run a country.

Like what is happening now

your rebuttals are

"polls are meaningless"

"not enough turnout"

"and I refuse to admit that labour is mostly a remain party"

For a democracy to work, compromise needs to be seen

no deal brexit

Is like if remain had won

and then we decided to join the euro

and become a german state

And that's ignoring the questioned legitimacy of the referendum itself

I will remind you again

if the referendum had been binding, the result would have been thrown out

The only thing that saved the referendum result during the court cases

Was that it was advisory and as such the rules weren't as strict

Hit the word limit, kek @Hiddenhope

> My rebuttal to your first point is that polls don't ask the entire country as a referendum does.
True, they're an "educated guess." Steps can be taken to make them more accurate, such as sample size, controling the medium in which they're asked, where they're asked, the wording, etc.

> How is overturning a question put to the entire country based on the evidence of a poll that only... say... 1000 people. (I doubt polls get past the 10,000 mark)
Peoples views and opinions change, how can it hurt putting the question back to the people? "Look, shit's changed, we know what it will look like now, is that what you want?" That would be the policy I advocate and push for. But my personal feelings are, people shouldn't be voting anyway, but that's for another time.

> In essence this goes back to my first point. Why does can an election with a turnout of 50.66% be seen as something that can overturn a referendum with 72.21% turnout?
The 2017 general election had a 68.8% turnout rate. When combined with the other supporting evidence, it makes a very compelling argument.

> May was a bloody horrible leader, with a terrifying manifesto.
And had a horrible deal, which a majority of people did not like. Now Boris has basically the same deal, which people still do not like.

> In all, you can't really use the GE as there was a lot more stuff muddying the waters.
I'd argue that the general election was more powerful than the referendum, since the referendum was not legally binding. The general election allows parties to do MUCH more than just Brexit (They could do literally anything with a majority), though yes that does support you slightly, I'd counter by saying that Brexit was the primary topic of the general election.

> For a democracy to work. The losers have to accept then they have lost.
True, but you need to concede that peoples views and positions change over time and we have multiple indicators showing this to be the case.

Further, for democracy to work, there needs to be an accepted level of impartiality and non-interference. Something which we did not see across the board. Both sides broke the rules, we had Russia pushing propaganda online and Obama saying the UK would be at the back of the queue. For democracy to actually work, those things need to be eliminated and why the referendum should be re-ran.