I am getting tired of this democracy argument because it is the biggest load of tosh going. Firstly, our own system is a compromise around true democracy. Any voter who votes for a losing party in their constituency has their vote thrown in the bin. People can say that this is needed to provide a strong government that can govern, but it isn't truely democratic.
Then when it comes to Brexit, if you want to argue that more democracy is undemocratic, you have another agenda and are not a true democrat. You can argue we shouldn't have a second vote because it is a waste of time, you can argue we shouldn't have it as all sides said we wouldn't have one. But what you can't argue is that having one is not democratic, unless it is rigged of course. Then you will have a good point. A second vote will have the outcome based on the will of the British people.
We have to acknowledge that this is one almighty mess and the Prime Minister does not have the full support of her own party. A second vote, if close either way may not solve anything, but if it delivers a clear result, it is our best chance to bring this country back together.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Dont think I have posted on this thread, me and missus both voted Brexit - we were lied to, and didnt have the sense to see it - would love to have a chance to reverse our vote.
Watching it unravel and seeing how our UK politicians/ media blamed all the ills of our country on the EU, then, the realisation, all was within their power to resolve - sickening.
Also, as on old git who lived in London through the 70/80's - the Irish border issue is, in my mind, unresolvable ('eh Seth).
Having said recently how rare it is for anyone to come out and acknowledge they've changed their mind on an issue, I just wanted to say fair play and respect to you...even if you did undermine my point.
The questions are an issue - If May hadn't got a deal it would be straightforward. Of course it isn't too difficult to include the three main options by asking, Remain or Leave? Then have a second question, if the majority vote to leave, do you want to leave with the government's deal or no deal and WTO rules? If that is too complicated for any voters, they shouldn't be allowed to vote. A chimp could probably grasp it and they don't have a vote!
Of course, if you are not a democrat, like quite a few Brexiters are showing themselves not to be, you could say that if you vote remain, your wishes should be ignored about what sort of Brexit you prefer if it is a Brexit we have to have. But I would say that a Remainer should be allowed to have an input on this important question if you want Brexit to reflect the will of the people. Which of course many don't.
I tell you what. If I had voted remain and this goes to a second bloody referendum then I would vote leave in the name of democracy.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum. I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
What laws are the EU imposing that make your life worse?
We have control of our borders, we have just chosen not to properly impose it. People have the right to a 3 month grace in which time they must get a job or prove that they have sufficient wealth to not become a burden on the state. The fact it's not imposed is hardly the fault of the EU - and we wrote the legislation giving us that right.
I tell you what. If I had voted remain and this goes to a second bloody referendum then I would vote leave in the name of democracy.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum. I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
Serious question.
Did you know at the time of the referendum what the customs union was. What the single market was. How the four freedoms were all inextricably related, that there was ever any chance of Turkey joining the EU. That we don’t sent £350 million to Brussels each week. The role of the myriad of bodies controlling, drugs, air travel, etc etc.
Did you know ?
I’ve asked the same question to leave supporting members of my extended family and the answer has always been after some bluster....No.
If you did know then you are in a very small minority.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
I tell you what. If I had voted remain and this goes to a second bloody referendum then I would vote leave in the name of democracy.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum. I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
I just don't understand this viewpoint.
It has been about damage limitation since Article 50 was triggered. All that's happened since the referendum is hearing about the dodgy Vote Leave campaign and the difficulties we will face.
We've made a massive error, surely this is plain to see. Nobody can say why this is going to be beneficial other than laws/borders which is obviously nonsense.
Why would we purposely press the red button and self destruct? We need a chance to reverse this absolute mess.
I am getting tired of this democracy argument because it is the biggest load of tosh going. Firstly, our own system is a compromise around true democracy. Any voter who votes for a losing party in their constituency has their vote thrown in the bin. People can say that this is needed to provide a strong government that can govern, but it isn't truely democratic.
Then when it comes to Brexit, if you want to argue that more democracy is undemocratic, you have another agenda and are not a true democrat. You can argue we shouldn't have a second vote because it is a waste of time, you can argue we shouldn't have it as all sides said we wouldn't have one. But what you can't argue is that having one is not democratic, unless it is rigged of course. Then you will have a good point. A second vote will have the outcome based on the will of the British people.
We have to acknowledge that this is one almighty mess and the Prime Minister does not have the full support of her own party. A second vote, if close either way may not solve anything, but if it delivers a clear result, it is our best chance to bring this country back together.
I agree with all of that apart from the last sentance, I don't see anyway to fix the divide, the losing side is never going to be Happy, nor can I see elements of either sode accepting the result if they 'lose'.
I am getting tired of this democracy argument because it is the biggest load of tosh going. Firstly, our own system is a compromise around true democracy. Any voter who votes for a losing party in their constituency has their vote thrown in the bin. People can say that this is needed to provide a strong government that can govern, but it isn't truely democratic.
Then when it comes to Brexit, if you want to argue that more democracy is undemocratic, you have another agenda and are not a true democrat. You can argue we shouldn't have a second vote because it is a waste of time, you can argue we shouldn't have it as all sides said we wouldn't have one. But what you can't argue is that having one is not democratic, unless it is rigged of course. Then you will have a good point. A second vote will have the outcome based on the will of the British people.
We have to acknowledge that this is one almighty mess and the Prime Minister does not have the full support of her own party. A second vote, if close either way may not solve anything, but if it delivers a clear result, it is our best chance to bring this country back together.
I agree with all of that apart from the last sentance, I don't see anyway to fix the divide, the losing side is never going to be Happy, nor can I see elements of either sode accepting the result if they 'lose'.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I tell you what. If I had voted remain and this goes to a second bloody referendum then I would vote leave in the name of democracy.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum. I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
Swallow what though? One thing the UK won't have to swallow is control of it's borders, so what is left to swallow?
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
Not at all, the Brexit offered in the original ballot was what was vague. The reality that has come through this process is we can only have a soft Brexit which is in name only (why bother) no control on immigration, no separate trade deals, (and no influence) - both of those are key to any Brexit and they simply arent available in a soft exit. We can have a Hard Brexit, but nothing in between, and that should be the choice, Hard or Remain
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
But surely out means out? If in means in, then out must mean out. Surely any half measure is an additional nuance that didn't exist?
Norway are not in the European Union, you cannot be anymore “out” than that.
The problem with May's deal is not that its soft its that it doesnt it appears actually resolve the main issues, it kicks it down the road and leaves us without the power we have at the moment.
For me Brexit must be defined properly with principles a bit like the EU does. A deal negotiated that actually reflects those principles, that is what should have been done in the first place.
Even if that had been done there is an argument for a second referendum on that deal as part of the process, but also should have been set out in the first place, to check opinion once the reality of a deal had been explored.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
Not at all, the Brexit offered in the original ballot was what was vague. The reality that has come through this process is we can only have a soft Brexit which is in name only (why bother) no control on immigration, no separate trade deals, (and no influence) - both of those are key to any Brexit and they simply arent available in a soft exit. We can have a Hard Brexit, but nothing in between, and that should be the choice, Hard or Remain
A soft Brexit is still Brexit - just because it doesn’t satisfy some arbitrary requirements that Jacob Rees-Mogg or the Daily Mail have invented doesn’t mean that simply leaving the EU no longer satisfies the outcome of the referendum.
If control on trade deals or immigration were “key to any Brexit” then they should have put it on the ballot paper.
not only that the country was clearly divided in the first place, the numpties who let the genie out of the bottle in a poor referendum in the first place are to blame.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
The problem with a second referendum is that, even if parliament could find a majority to support it (which I’m highly doubtful of), I’m not sure they could reach consensus on the question(s) that would be asked which would surely now have to be more nuanced than the original in/out question.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
Norway sucks, there really is no point leaving to get Norway.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
Norway isn’t optimal (the only “optimal” outcome from my perspective is remaining in the EU) but it does technically allow us to honour the referendum outcome and leave the EU without obliterating our economy plus provides a solution to the Irish border question.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
But it doesnt honour the referendum, it is Brexit in name only.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
I have to disagree with that - the question on the ballot paper was very simple, in or out, you’ve just invented additional nuance that didn’t exist.
Not at all, the Brexit offered in the original ballot was what was vague. The reality that has come through this process is we can only have a soft Brexit which is in name only (why bother) no control on immigration, no separate trade deals, (and no influence) - both of those are key to any Brexit and they simply arent available in a soft exit. We can have a Hard Brexit, but nothing in between, and that should be the choice, Hard or Remain
A soft Brexit is still Brexit - just because it doesn’t satisfy some arbitrary requirements that Jacob Rees-Mogg or the Daily Mail have invented doesn’t mean that simply leaving the EU no longer satisfies the outcome of the referendum.
If control on trade deals or immigration were “key to any Brexit” then they should have put it on the ballot paper.
Not sure thats fair because if you look at the Leave campaign and polling on why people voted leave you can find principles, but yes it should have been defined. I think May defined it a bit, but her deal doesn't even live up to that.
If the article 50 law is revoked it does not directly conflict with the referendum result, and at least buys some time. Hopefully enough time to get rid of these vile Tories.
I have always been interested in demographics and seeing as the referendum cut through the usual Red, Blue, Yellow party lines, the biggest irony for me is the Millennials who say they've had their futures sold out, had the smallest percentage of voters bother to cast their democratic right.
Democracy should be about giving people what they decide they want.
Does anyone currently think that any of the current options (ie the current agreement, a no-deal Brexit or remaining) does this? Would anyone consider that any one of the options currently on the table gives the British public what they decided they want?
In simple terms, each of the options that we currently face is something that the majority of people in the country do not want. At the 2016 referendum, most people didn't want to remain. So that option shouldn't be in the frame. Of the balance of voters, there is a split between the people who would prefer a softer Brexit (like the one that will be voted on next week) and a no-deal, "clean" or "WTO" brexit. So clearly, whichever of these is chosen will be unsupported by the vast majority of people.
Whichever direction the Government and Parliament now turns will be demonstrably, palpably and unarguably undemocratic. It will be something that most people do not want.
That is why we need to go back to the country and find out what the UK population wants now. Does the majority now accept the option to remain? Does the majority prefer the softer Brexit as agreed between Theresa May and the EU? Does the majority want us to crash out?
A three-way, transferable vote is an easy way to find what the majority of people would accept as a solution. And, with these three options, the chosen solution can be very rapidly deployed. If we choose to stay, we simply revoke our triggering of Article 50. If we choose the soft Brexit option, we rubber stamp the May/EU agreement. If we choose to crash out, we crash out.
Last time we were told it would be quick and easy to deploy the will of the people. This was probably the biggest of all the lies. This time, it really can be quick and easy.
A People's Vote is a democratic way of ensuring we get what we want, clearly and quickly. If anyone still says that the 2016 referendum represents the "will of the people", that it would be undemocratic to ask the public for a final decision or that we can rely on Parliament to deliver what we want is profoundly wrong.
BTW, before any leaver bleats on about Ireland and Denmark, and how the voters were told to vote again. Don't even try it on, in both countries, the voters voted on different things, a bit like in the first vote being offered Unicorns, and when you get there its a donkey with a dildo glued to its head.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
Nearly spat my tea out when I read that this morning.
Either you have finally been cornered, or you've got more neck than a genetically modified giraffe.
You really are not going to answer my question, are you? One that I have been posing to you, directly, for around 2 years; and with the objective simply of understanding you, your outlook on life, how you came to this obdurate Brexit viewpoint, better.
Of course it's a classic deflection tactic to answer with an irrelevant counter-question. It's piss poor though, because my question concerns how you see the consequences of something which is going to happen, whereas your question is some academic one which does not even explain how the scenario you describe might come about.
You can't get away with it. On 23.6.16 you must have had some idea of the bright new dawn you envisaged for your 17 million friends. I'm just asking you to describe it in practical detail. Why is it so difficult? Up to you if you decline to do so, of course. But failure to do so might lead people to draw their own conclusions, which would be rather a waste of your years of consistent posting on this thread.
Prague, you cannot accept my answer because you do not believe in national sovereignty, whereas most Leave voters do, as in control over laws, borders and money. It is a fundamental difference which there can be little or no compromise on, as we can see all the time by the ferocity of feelings over it.
No mate, I cannot accept that you have even tried to answer my question. But for some weird reason, I really want to get to the bottom of this, so I'll keep going. Let's say that Brexit will be a sign that the UK has, in your book, regained its sovereignty.
OK. Good.
Now please explain how that will in turn bring a materially (i.e tangibly) better life to examples of the British version of 'the Forgotten'. People who may be Charlton fans. A fireman. An NHS worker. A teacher. A fitter. Someone who has worked for M&S for 25 years. Someone who has worked in Greenwich Council for the same time. This kind of people. Absolutely not the elite. Quite possibly not a uni degree among them, although their kids may be on the way to getting one.
How will the restoration of sovereignty remove their feeling of having been forgotten?
How will kicking them in the teeth by overturning the Referendum result make people feel do you think? More belief that politics can work for them or less do you think? More likely to become more politically active or more demoralised do you think? More belief that you can make a difference by voting or less do you think?
I have now asked you twice how you would feel had the Referendum gone the other way and a Tory PM had decided to take us out of the EU anyway. Your silence speaks for itself.
Nearly spat my tea out when I read that this morning.
Either you have finally been cornered, or you've got more neck than a genetically modified giraffe.
You really are not going to answer my question, are you? One that I have been posing to you, directly, for around 2 years; and with the objective simply of understanding you, your outlook on life, how you came to this obdurate Brexit viewpoint, better.
Of course it's a classic deflection tactic to answer with an irrelevant counter-question. It's piss poor though, because my question concerns how you see the consequences of something which is going to happen, whereas your question is some academic one which does not even explain how the scenario you describe might come about.
You can't get away with it. On 23.6.16 you must have had some idea of the bright new dawn you envisaged for your 17 million friends. I'm just asking you to describe it in practical detail. Why is it so difficult? Up to you if you decline to do so, of course. But failure to do so might lead people to draw their own conclusions, which would be rather a waste of your years of consistent posting on this thread.
He has already stated on numerous occasions that it was to give a voice to the white working class - apparently all of his family are white working class, but not him. Very altruistic.
What he hasn't stated, and seems to avoid it like the plague, is what Brexit (his version which is hard - because that's what they all voted for) will actually do for his white working class.
He does state that he may benefit financially but didn't realise this at the time. So he does differ slightly from WRM who of course has known all along that he would personally benefit hugely from Brexit.
Comments
Then when it comes to Brexit, if you want to argue that more democracy is undemocratic, you have another agenda and are not a true democrat. You can argue we shouldn't have a second vote because it is a waste of time, you can argue we shouldn't have it as all sides said we wouldn't have one. But what you can't argue is that having one is not democratic, unless it is rigged of course. Then you will have a good point. A second vote will have the outcome based on the will of the British people.
We have to acknowledge that this is one almighty mess and the Prime Minister does not have the full support of her own party. A second vote, if close either way may not solve anything, but if it delivers a clear result, it is our best chance to bring this country back together.
A second referendum is not akin to overturning a decision either, it simply is a double check based on better knowledge of the outcome which lets face it was very hazy and as others have said accompanied by campaigns full of lies and in some cases for Leave criminality - letting a vote that close stand without checking it is more divisive in my view.
For me the best way out of this nonsense would be Norway, which I think I’ve been saying for ages but until now hasn’t looked likely but it may now.
:-)
Of course, if you are not a democrat, like quite a few Brexiters are showing themselves not to be, you could say that if you vote remain, your wishes should be ignored about what sort of Brexit you prefer if it is a Brexit we have to have. But I would say that a Remainer should be allowed to have an input on this important question if you want Brexit to reflect the will of the people. Which of course many don't.
A f****** g joke the lot of it.
People bleating on about having more information now than when the vote took place is complete bunkum.
I don't doubt there wasn't enough information but this government decided there was enough to make an informed decision. Same as they do before you go to the polls for an election.
In future, will we be given the option of a general election as soon as the government in power flunks on one of its manifesto promises? If this goes to a second referendum then I should bloody well hope so.
As a body of people the decision was made. Informed or not you're just going to have to swallow it.
We have control of our borders, we have just chosen not to properly impose it. People have the right to a 3 month grace in which time they must get a job or prove that they have sufficient wealth to not become a burden on the state. The fact it's not imposed is hardly the fault of the EU - and we wrote the legislation giving us that right.
What do you even mean by "money"?
Did you know at the time of the referendum what the customs union was. What the single market was. How the four freedoms were all inextricably related, that there was ever any chance of Turkey joining the EU. That we don’t sent £350 million to Brussels each week. The role of the myriad of bodies controlling, drugs, air travel, etc etc.
Did you know ?
I’ve asked the same question to leave supporting members of my extended family and the answer has always been after some bluster....No.
If you did know then you are in a very small minority.
Questions for a second referendum? It must simply be on Leave or Remain, if Leave wins and parliament still cant agree we go to an election.
It has been about damage limitation since Article 50 was triggered. All that's happened since the referendum is hearing about the dodgy Vote Leave campaign and the difficulties we will face.
We've made a massive error, surely this is plain to see. Nobody can say why this is going to be beneficial other than laws/borders which is obviously nonsense.
Why would we purposely press the red button and self destruct? We need a chance to reverse this absolute mess.
Iceland is an interesting example, part of EFTA but able to strike their own free trade deals, don’t know enough about that option or how it differs from Norway.
The truth sadly is the only Brexit really available is a hard Brexit. People need to realise that when they vote, that other deal is not and will never be on the table Norway and soft Brexit just give worst of all worlds, for example still allowing freedom of movement of labour, but losing all our influence, there is zero point in that.
One thing the UK won't have to swallow is control of it's borders, so what is left to swallow?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46428579
For me Brexit must be defined properly with principles a bit like the EU does. A deal negotiated that actually reflects those principles, that is what should have been done in the first place.
Even if that had been done there is an argument for a second referendum on that deal as part of the process, but also should have been set out in the first place, to check opinion once the reality of a deal had been explored.
If control on trade deals or immigration were “key to any Brexit” then they should have put it on the ballot paper.
‘Suffer pain now so we can make Britain Great Again’ say 45% in new E.U. poll.
Not sure who they polled!
I wonder what sort of suffering the likes of Mogg, Johnson, Villiers, Davis, Leadsom, Gove etc envisage for themselves?
It’s like something out of an episode of ‘Blackadder goes forth’.
Hopefully enough time to get rid of these vile Tories.
Does anyone currently think that any of the current options (ie the current agreement, a no-deal Brexit or remaining) does this? Would anyone consider that any one of the options currently on the table gives the British public what they decided they want?
In simple terms, each of the options that we currently face is something that the majority of people in the country do not want. At the 2016 referendum, most people didn't want to remain. So that option shouldn't be in the frame. Of the balance of voters, there is a split between the people who would prefer a softer Brexit (like the one that will be voted on next week) and a no-deal, "clean" or "WTO" brexit. So clearly, whichever of these is chosen will be unsupported by the vast majority of people.
Whichever direction the Government and Parliament now turns will be demonstrably, palpably and unarguably undemocratic. It will be something that most people do not want.
That is why we need to go back to the country and find out what the UK population wants now. Does the majority now accept the option to remain? Does the majority prefer the softer Brexit as agreed between Theresa May and the EU? Does the majority want us to crash out?
A three-way, transferable vote is an easy way to find what the majority of people would accept as a solution. And, with these three options, the chosen solution can be very rapidly deployed. If we choose to stay, we simply revoke our triggering of Article 50. If we choose the soft Brexit option, we rubber stamp the May/EU agreement. If we choose to crash out, we crash out.
Last time we were told it would be quick and easy to deploy the will of the people. This was probably the biggest of all the lies. This time, it really can be quick and easy.
A People's Vote is a democratic way of ensuring we get what we want, clearly and quickly. If anyone still says that the 2016 referendum represents the "will of the people", that it would be undemocratic to ask the public for a final decision or that we can rely on Parliament to deliver what we want is profoundly wrong.
Either you have finally been cornered, or you've got more neck than a genetically modified giraffe.
You really are not going to answer my question, are you? One that I have been posing to you, directly, for around 2 years; and with the objective simply of understanding you, your outlook on life, how you came to this obdurate Brexit viewpoint, better.
Of course it's a classic deflection tactic to answer with an irrelevant counter-question. It's piss poor though, because my question concerns how you see the consequences of something which is going to happen, whereas your question is some academic one which does not even explain how the scenario you describe might come about.
You can't get away with it. On 23.6.16 you must have had some idea of the bright new dawn you envisaged for your 17 million friends. I'm just asking you to describe it in practical detail. Why is it so difficult? Up to you if you decline to do so, of course. But failure to do so might lead people to draw their own conclusions, which would be rather a waste of your years of consistent posting on this thread.
What he hasn't stated, and seems to avoid it like the plague, is what Brexit (his version which is hard - because that's what they all voted for) will actually do for his white working class.
He does state that he may benefit financially but didn't realise this at the time. So he does differ slightly from WRM who of course has known all along that he would personally benefit hugely from Brexit.