FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Another referendum (part ????)
Another referendum (part ????)
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The trouble is Parliament doesn't want May's deal or no deal so even if leave won we would still be in the same position. If remain wins there will be cries for another referendum....basically we are at stalemate. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The trouble is Parliament doesn't want May's deal or no deal so even if leave won we would still be in the same position. If remain wins there will be cries for another referendum....basically we are at stalemate."
Make it legally binding.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass...."
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
We need a referendum on whether we should have a referendum. But if the minority don't like the result of the referendum on the referendum they can bitch on about another referendum but change the question so they improve their chances in that referendum. But if they don't like that result they can bitch on about another referendum, etc etc etc |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016."
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obka3Couple
over a year ago
bournemouth |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ? "
Ok so if JC wins the next election and as he will fucks the country in a few months we get another go so we can kick him out, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ? "
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ? "
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
"
The point is people may have changed their minds. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK. "
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds."
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears ! "
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy."
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Another year and another load of dickhead posts by remoaner libtards predicting another referendum. I predict they will become more and more desperate as time runs out for them.
I only hope that time runs out for Ms May, and we get the fresh start we require if we are ever going to be independent from the EU.  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy.
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course. "
You don't understand democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy.
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course.
You don't understand democracy."
It's you who doesn't understand it. If you want to live in a country ruled by tin pot dictators who ignore democratic results I suggest you go live somewhere other than the UK. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy.
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course.
You don't understand democracy.
It's you who doesn't understand it. If you want to live in a country ruled by tin pot dictators who ignore democratic results I suggest you go live somewhere other than the UK. "
Another vote would be democratic. And it's my country as much as yours snowflake. Get over it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy.
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course. "
So you cannot remove a government until every policy in its manifesto has been enacted regardless of changing circumstances or likely outcome?
48:52 would be unfinished business - Nigel Farage  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK.
Once again snowflake, you can't undermine democracy with democracy.
Yes you can undermine it. Democracy is having a vote on something and then implementing the result. You can't have another vote with remain as an option until after we've left the EU. The result of the 2016 vote has to be implemented first for democracy to take its course.
You don't understand democracy.
It's you who doesn't understand it. If you want to live in a country ruled by tin pot dictators who ignore democratic results I suggest you go live somewhere other than the UK. "
We already live I a country where independent High Court judges are "enemies if the people" when they make decisions that you don't like. Particularly if they're gay.
Ironically, when they make the decision that you are counting on to prevent the Brexit means Brexit that you demanded that we get behind |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Another year and another load of dickhead posts by remoaner libtards predicting another referendum. I predict they will become more and more desperate as time runs out for them.
I only hope that time runs out for Ms May, and we get the fresh start we require if we are ever going to be independent from the EU. "
Were you ever going to post that well thought out plan that will make Britain great again after Brexit.
Other than shouting at people, blowing stuff up and "knowing"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass...."
Seems reasonable.
The fantasy Brexit no deal option has to be there to vote for again.
We don't have much religion anymore so we need something to have "faith" in  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Another year and another load of dickhead posts by remoaner libtards predicting another referendum. I predict they will become more and more desperate as time runs out for them.
I only hope that time runs out for Ms May, and we get the fresh start we require if we are ever going to be independent from the EU. "
Oh the irony.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless? "
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?"
I'm not entirely convinced that you've grasped the concept of democracy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?"
Governments can change at least every 5 years. Sometimes more frequently. Why do they change? Perhaps because people change their minds about what they voted for 
The same people have significantly more detailed information about Brexit than previously.
The government have spent two years trying to negotiate a credible deal.
What's your solution if it fails to be passed by Parliament and the government is forced to allow legislation to prevent a hard Brexit because it would be detrimental to the national interest?
A coup? Martial law? A dictatorship to impose the will of nobody?
Under these circumstances you are saying that it would be bizarre to allow the people to reconsider?
You are content that the first referendum was valid. Is your assertion that there has been no significant change in circumstances and information since then?
Are you saying that a hard Brexit or Theresa May's deal was what either Leave campaign was based on?
Consumer legislation allows you to return a product if it is mis-sold or faulty for repair, replacement or refund.
Do you think that the most significant legislation of a decade is less important than a kettle? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?"
if the current debate was just between remainers and leavers, I’d have a lot of sympathy for this.
However when leavers talk about this not being the brexit they voted for, BINO, and the like, despite Mays deal delivering exactly what was on the ballot paper, I start to question the credibility of the result did people REALLY understand what they were voting for? When JRM and the like are looking to instigate disruption of the government at a crucial time despite May delivering on the result, it makes me query the result again. It’s not just remainers who “don’t like the score” but those which won.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?
I'm not entirely convinced that you've grasped the concept of democracy."
Oh the irony....
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ? I note you are unwilling to answer this. I wonder why |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?
I'm not entirely convinced that you've grasped the concept of democracy.
Oh the irony....
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ? I note you are unwilling to answer this. I wonder why "
The previous referendum result has been respected.
There has been two years of negotiation in trying to enact it.
Do you agree with that?
There is now a government position. This is, apparently, not backed by either remain or leave voters.
Should the government position be deployed regardless of the democratic will as expressed by Parliament being against it?
If the democratic will of Parliament is also against a hard Brexit should that still be carried out if the government position is not enacted?
You can repeat the same line like a parrot forever, but have a go at relating it to reality. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave..."
And the record loops back on itself.
You are demanding that the government deliver on a promise that cannot be kept based on non-facts.
I would be delighted to pay zero tax and see twice the spending on public services.
Shall we have a referendum on it then demand that the government makes it happen?
It would be the perfect solution to everything wouldn't it? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I agree parliament is there to act on the will of the people,, not keep asking for referendums because they can't deliver the people's will.
Can you imagine Churchill faffing like this group of politicians. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave..."
If a company kicked off a project and found the cost / benefit profile wasn’t as expected, they’d reevaluate.
And just because we voted because we think they need us more than we need them doesn’t make it so.
And how can MPs screw this up? The question was clear. Stay or remain in the EU. U less we revoke article 50 we will be out of the EU. Referendum delivered.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I voted to join in the 70's, and I voted remain in 2016!
I personally will vote remain again if there is another one, but I don't think there should be another one. If remain won 52/48 - There will be the same problem only leave are pissed off. If there was a decisive win (by either side 60/40) it may be better?
Only by leaving will we know who was right and who was wrong - we have to prove who was right. Project gear or Project fantasy!
I would be in favour of scrapping referendums forever - MP's are paid to make decisions. The public (some) are not or choose not to research sufficiently to make an informed decision, as has been proved when interviewedon t.v.they thought we'dleave the next day, or that £350m would go to the NHS!
To conclude I don't think the UK will reconcile in my lifetime - 30 years at least!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I voted to join in the 70's, and I voted remain in 2016!
I personally will vote remain again if there is another one, but I don't think there should be another one. If remain won 52/48 - There will be the same problem only leave are pissed off. If there was a decisive win (by either side 60/40) it may be better?
Only by leaving will we know who was right and who was wrong - we have to prove who was right. Project gear or Project fantasy!
I would be in favour of scrapping referendums forever - MP's are paid to make decisions. The public (some) are not or choose not to research sufficiently to make an informed decision, as has been proved when interviewedon t.v.they thought we'dleave the next day, or that £350m would go to the NHS!
To conclude I don't think the UK will reconcile in my lifetime - 30 years at least!
"
Oops Fear not gear!
84 days
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think I might have a bet on the government calling a second referendum before 2020 .Odds are 5/4,not great and 4/7 it won't happen Bookies think it's more likely than not.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I voted not to join the charade in the first place .I voted to leave in 2016 . both times I accepted the result. It is a great pity many of today go on like spoilt brats.referendums are not games .its like a let's play chess forever till I win attitude has been instilled in far too many .I do not want another referendum .if this is forced down our throats I would vote leave every time.but Whatever the result then I would still accept . that's the trouble with society today... those that think they know best are,the only ones that count .forget the rest of us. Show some respect show some dignity to all. Stop this tomfoolery once and for all get on with it |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?
I'm not entirely convinced that you've grasped the concept of democracy.
Oh the irony....
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ? I note you are unwilling to answer this. I wonder why "
It might be that I didn't answer it because you didn't address the question to me. Democracy is not a series of one off events, rather it's a set of interlinked processes. Since there has been a lot of water under the bridge since 2016, it wouldn't be undemocratic to check to see whether what's on offer is what people want. That would surely be democracy in action? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave..."
Unfortunately it's clear that they don't need us more than we need them. A cursory glance at the trade data for individual EU states would prove that to be the case. If they did need us more than we need them, then we wouldn't be up this particular creek without a paddle (and with a leaking canoe) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I voted not to join the charade in the first place .I voted to leave in 2016 . both times I accepted the result. It is a great pity many of today go on like spoilt brats.referendums are not games .its like a let's play chess forever till I win attitude has been instilled in far too many .I do not want another referendum .if this is forced down our throats I would vote leave every time.but Whatever the result then I would still accept . that's the trouble with society today... those that think they know best are,the only ones that count .forget the rest of us. Show some respect show some dignity to all. Stop this tomfoolery once and for all get on with it "
You're right, it's not a game. Makes one wonder why the "you lost get over it " mantra is repeated so often |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass...."
This doesn’t seem like a good solution. It means that people who want to leave have all the say in how we leave, and people who wish to remain get no say in the choice between “Mays deal” and “no deal”.
The one thing we’ve learned from this entire farce is that referendums don’t work. People can and are too easily influenced into voting out of fear or ignorance rather than on information and facts. The solution is for the government to get their shit together and do the only thing that makes any sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It would all be so simple if parliament accepts mays deal.Then brexit would happen.But as usual the loonies have thrown their toys out the pram in the belief they can have their cake and eat it.
They've allowed a second referendum to be all but inevitable now...
Delicious entertainment for remainers .. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave..."
Absolutely, but the libtard wants to be in this nice fluffy EU bubble, and are prepared to throw away hundreds of millions of pounds to stay there.
But the country voted leave, and ANY political leader who makes us remain, will go down in history as a weakling and a traitor. What happened to Guy Falks? That should be the punishment... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Two vote referendum
Question 1. Should the UK accept the governments negotiated withdrawal agreement with the EU
Accept the withdrawal agreement.
Or
Regret the withdrawal agreement.
Question 2. If the withdrawal agreement is REJECTED how should the United Kingdom Proceed
Leave the European Union WITHOUT withdrawal agreement
OR
Remain in the European Union. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
I voted not to join the charade in the first place .I voted to leave in 2016 . both times I accepted the result. It is a great pity many of today go on like spoilt brats.referendums are not games .its like a let's play chess forever till I win attitude has been instilled in far too many .I do not want another referendum .if this is forced down our throats I would vote leave every time.but Whatever the result then I would still accept . that's the trouble with society today... those that think they know best are,the only ones that count .forget the rest of us. Show some respect show some dignity to all. Stop this tomfoolery once and for all get on with it "
Actually had it not been so close then I think it would have been accepted. Also as it has now been proved in court that Leave cheated, but because it was not discovered within 6 weeks of the result - nothing can be done! Funny we are both from the north east, but we are miles apart in thinking - wonder why? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"The problem we have unfortunately is a group of politicians (from all parties) looking after there own political careers. If they get it wrong they will go down in history for screwing it up.
Constitutionally we voted as a country and now it is there job to make it happen, can you image yourself in the workplace if you had been given a job, task or project to complete and wanted to have another vote about it.
Remember this is a 2 way street, at the moment all the pressure is on the UK, stop! they need us as more than we need them, that's why we voted this way. Billions of pounds of British tax payers money could go to our health service, education, road and new industry.
No 2nd referendum , leave...
Absolutely, but the libtard wants to be in this nice fluffy EU bubble, and are prepared to throw away hundreds of millions of pounds to stay there.
But the country voted leave, and ANY political leader who makes us remain, will go down in history as a weakling and a traitor. What happened to Guy Falks? That should be the punishment..."
Nobody would making anyone remain. Why do you keep saying that?
The discussion is about allowing the country the option to decide based on the latest information. People would be just as free to decide however they wish. Why do you think they wouldn't? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Two vote referendum
Question 1. Should the UK accept the governments negotiated withdrawal agreement with the EU
Accept the withdrawal agreement.
Or
Regret the withdrawal agreement.
Question 2. If the withdrawal agreement is REJECTED how should the United Kingdom Proceed
Leave the European Union WITHOUT withdrawal agreement
OR
Remain in the European Union. "
That doesn't seem like a bad option.
I'm sure there will be a demand to have "renegotiate" as an option, but the reality is we've spent two years to get to here. I don't really understand why the situation would change. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Remain - until such time as there's enough time to negotiate a deal that's better than being within the EU. The Conservatives should have decided what they wanted before they triggered Article 50, so that the last 2 years weren't flushed away, whilst they tried to make their minds up. They still haven't and it's perhaps as unlikely that parliament will vote to accept the government's deal (the one that all Ministers, including Bojo, worked on at Chequers, with the final elements that May concluded with the EU), so with insufficient time for any further negotitations, Article 50 should be cancelled. There's no time to arrange the legislation needed for a referendum on the deal, whilst Article 50 clock's ticking down, so cancel it. Then get the Conservatives to either agree what they want and open Article 50 and negotiate, alongside a referendum prepartion, in case it's needed - or have a general election, so that all parties create a manifesto for how they'll deal with the EU membership.
Doing anything at such a late stage is just self-harming, when there are just a few days until the end of March. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ara JTV/TS
over a year ago
Bristol East |
"Remain - until such time as there's enough time to negotiate a deal that's better than being within the EU."
I don't understand this.
Either you are a member of the EU, with the benefits.
Or you are not.
How can you have the benefits and not be a member?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?"
I would point out how ridiculous this is but many others have beaten me to it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Renegotiate is not an option. Government and every EU state and negotiator have said that’s the deal end of story!
Too late renegotiating they had over 2 yrs to get it right... "
100%. I don’t know why leavers are now complaining about this. There was only ever going to be some kind of shit deal like this or total economic and cultural meltdown of the no deal.
Did anyone one expect any other outcome? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?
I would point out how ridiculous this is but many others have beaten me to it."
Congrats on winning the "totally non constructive and pointless post award" ! Thanks for your input anyway. Sigh.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
Why ? The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
The point is people may have changed their minds.
Yes they might have.
The referendum was carried out in the correct manner and the result validated - if you have information that proves otherwise, then I am all ears !
So even if the majority of the country now wants to remain you think we should leave regardless?
An irrelevant (and somewhat bizarre) question ! We will never know if the majority of the country now wants to remain. If we take the notion that you are alluding to, then should we wait another two years and hold another referendum in case they change their minds again, and again, and so on ad infinitum ?
Do you think we should ignore the result of a democratic, credible, valid and verified referendum ?
I would point out how ridiculous this is but many others have beaten me to it.
Congrats on winning the "totally non constructive and pointless post award" ! Thanks for your input anyway. Sigh.... "
You mean like all your posts on this thread? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"LBC proposed a new way of doing a second reforendum
3 options.
Remain. Mays deal. No deal.
If remain gets more than 50% we stay.
If not, the most popular leave option is taken.
This way there is no splitting the leave vote. It’s a one and done vote, so no question of voting until the result changes. And if remain wins, then it’s because the majority of voters today want it to be so.
My only concern is (managed) wto is I’ll defined. And so we would still have “promises” of mini deals that may not come to pass....
First option is not required. This was decided in 2016.
Why not double check it’s still valid ? No harm eh ?
No harm, only the destruction of democracy in the UK. "
Thought more wanted BREXIT than before now anyway so nothing but a bigger mandate for it
Win win  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It would all be so simple if parliament accepts mays deal.Then brexit would happen.But as usual the loonies have thrown their toys out the pram in the belief they can have their cake and eat it.
They've allowed a second referendum to be all but inevitable now...
Delicious entertainment for remainers .. "
So true |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
May announcing that the tories do care about the NHS and Rudd hinting that universal credit may be slowed down because the tories have been listening to people's concerns ,, may point to the beginning of a general election campaign ,,, it might not , but then it might ,, absolutely anything could happen in the next few weeks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"May announcing that the tories do care about the NHS and Rudd hinting that universal credit may be slowed down because the tories have been listening to people's concerns ,, may point to the beginning of a general election campaign ,,, it might not , but then it might ,, absolutely anything could happen in the next few weeks"
Well how long has universal credit been in the making? Even IDS had a go and look it's a mess, and here we are 81 days to sort out. Who do you think we are kidding....? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ony 2016Man
over a year ago
Huddersfield /derby cinemas |
May has just said on the Andrew Marr show that a 2nd referendum would split the country ,,,,,,, what on earth did she think the 1st referendum would do when it was suggested in the 2015 Tory manifesto ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
