23 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have no doubt that the CON government would indeed have forced through the referendum opinion. However, they no longer have a majority and parliament is not bound in any way. 

 

By all means take it out on the CONs; be my guest. However, parliament is sovereign.

The UK is due to leave the European Union on 29 March, 2019 - it's the law, regardless of whether there is a deal with the EU or not.

If there is no UK request or no EU agreement to extend the negotiations, or if either the UK Parliament or the European Parliament or the other 27 EU Member States do not endorse the negotiated withdrawal agreement, there will be no ‘deal’ and the EU Treaties will no longer apply to the UK from 29 March 2019.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8397/CBP-8397.pdf

23 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I saw your reply by accident, so I reply.

 

Your kind had 3 years to come up with a solution and you failed. All you did was, you complained about everything. 

 

You are not worthy of second though anymore. Bye.

There is not need for "MY kind" to come up with a solution, we gave out directions to the UK Goverement on 23rd June 2016 and we are waiting patiently for the Goverment to carry out the instructions of 17.4 million voters. You not find a single post on this forum where I have complained about leaving 

"My Kind and the other 17.4 million people that voted to leave are waiting for the UK Government to carry out the instructions that we gave them on 23rd June 2016.

“The greatest lie of the EU referendum was not the NHS pledge plastered on the side of a bus. It was the government’s pledge that it would enact whatever we voted for. It is this lie that the people will not forget, or forgive," writes Brendan O’Neill

https://twitter.com/spikedonline?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^author

25 minutes ago, oilinki said:

An example. How to quiet the voices of whines and how to turn the discussion towards solutions of the future?

 

Whiners had their say and they have proven already that the whiners are not able to provide any kind of solutions. 

 

That's why it's time to override whatever they say and start creating future for the people.

we had a vote in 2016 17.4 million people voted to leave so we either leave with no deal or leave with the Theresa May deal

23 hours ago, Grouse said:

It's not that we do not accept the view of the, er, leavers.

 

We don't care 

 

We will continue to do what's best.

Similar to your post  its not that we do not accept the view of the remainers/remoners

We don't care

May is not listening, Corbyn is not listening, Leavers are not listening

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

"Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way..."

 

Look, having a majority agree with you in an advisory referendum was your high water mark, your zenith.

 

Now accept the fact that grown ups are not going to give you what you want as it would be too damaging.

 

Enough.

Don't see the remainers complaining much about the 1975 EU referendum which also was advisory

The Referendum Act 1975 (c. 33) also known simply as the Referendum Act was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which made legal provision for the holding of a non-binding referendum on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Communities (EC)—generally known at the time in the UK, ...

24 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

In which case they will be pressing for a second referendum, a final say on the Brexit options on the table.

A final say on the deal  the ballot paper options would be

1) Accept the deal with the EU

2) Leave without a deal

Remain wouldn't be an option as that was on the 2016 referendum and we all know the outcome to leave or remain

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

Goodwin is a cynical contrarian.

 

Just taking a contrary view to differentiate himself from the majority of academe

 

He's a nasty young BNP punk 

30 minutes ago, Grouse said:

What other kind of whisky is there?

 

The boy is a cynic. His views are whatever pays most.

23 minutes ago, Grouse said:

No. Not at all. You must surely know that I post links ad nauseum.

 

"Europe's emergent right wing is not all violent, and it should be taken seriously, says the author of "New British Fascism""

 

Do you read TheEconomist?

 

"As Goodwin notes: "There exists in British politics a sizeable amount of latent support for the extreme right which is far greater than is apparent at the polls. Put simply, extreme right parties in Britain have consistently failed to realise their potential.""

So you are unable to provide any supporting evidence to support your claim of " He's a nasty young BNP punk "

I take you know he is 37 years old

Matthew Goodwin is Lecturer in Politics in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham, and an Associate Fellow of Chatham House. His substantive research interests are political extremism, voting behaviour and immigration. He is the author of New British Fascism: Rise of the British National Party, and co-editor of The New Extremism in TwentyFirst Century Britain (both published by Routledge). His research has been published in leading academic journals, including the European Journal of Political Research, the Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, and Political Studies. Drawing on this research, Dr Goodwin has advised governmental and other agencies on these issues, including the Home Office, Cabinet Office, Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), local authorities and security services. He is a frequent panellist at international conferences and regular media commentator, including in the Economist, New York Times, Guardian and Financial Times, and on Newsnight and Westminster Hour. From 2007 to 2010, he was based at the University of Manchester where he was an Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) Postdoctoral Research Follow. His research in this area has also been partly funded by the British Academy.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/default/files/r0911_goodwin.pdf

Irish whisky is so much better than scotch whisky

 t

Just now, Grouse said:

What other kind of whisky is there?

 

The boy is a cynic. His views are whatever pays most.

I assume thats a NO then you can't provided any links to support your posts

Typical remainer doesn't provide any evidence to support their posts but always ask leavers to provide evidence to backup their posts

6 hours ago, bristolboy said:

A lot different from calling people "remoaner scum" for wanting another election.

 

Loon is a crazy person. And the fact that he was threatening other UK citizens who are exercising their right to be in opposition is the kind of things that a crazed and nasty person would say.

 

And the European Union's Convention on Human Rights does provide considerably more robust protection for individual Britons' liberty than does that vaporous quantity known as the British Constitution.

 

 

Here are some examples of loon's that are on the remain side 

Watching Children drown becuase they parents voted leave

Asking Children that are on Life Support Machines if their parents voted Brexit and turning off the life support machine of the child if the parents voted brexit

Or from 

@laurencehazlew1 in France 

Pity we couldn't put the 52% to sleep Permanently.One day euthansia WILL not only be legal but  compuslory for the dregs of Society like Wrecksitters. We'll call it Moral Cleansing

https://twitter.com/JackBMontgomery/status/1078348438784409602/photo/1

I can't recall any video from Pat Condell where he has suggested killing everyone that voted remain

7 minutes ago, damascase said:

 

Again, one vote of an elected government against is all that is needed to prevent a subject being moved from unanimity to qualified majority voting. 

And you are stating the current status not the potential future status hence my comment

Do you have a crystal ball that can 100% guarantee that the Eu army question or the requirement for the UK joining the Euro isn't go to happen in the next 45 years

11 minutes ago, damascase said:

Your 4th option: are you just ignorant or are you knowingly spreading malicous misinformation?

Do you have a crystal ball that can 100% guarantee that the Eu army question or the requirement for the UK joining the Euro isn't go to happen in the next 45 years

We already know the UK rebates are going in 2020 as the EU have already stated that 

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 Ok , I agree; most people did make up their minds on how to vote by themselves. 

 

But on what did they base that decision if not the various arguments put forward by both sides during the campaign? Are you seriously telling us you believe the average voter ignored the campaigning and instead did in depth research into all the aspects of EU membership and Brexit. into the pros and cons of each before making up their minds? Really?

 

I am not saying that people voted Leave because Boris told them too. What I am saying is that he changed his mind, so the British people should be given the opportunity to do the same.

 

If you and your fellows are correct, the result will be the same; So why are you all running scared of a second referendum?

 

Apart from evadgib's vague threat of violence in the streets, presumably akin to the poll tax riots, no one has answered that question.

And I stated that Boris changed his mind before the vote , Most leave voters I know had made there minds up as early as 2000 so the lies by both sides didn't make a any difference to the way they were going to vote

I have no problems with a 2nd referendum but it shouldn't  ask the same questions again so no option to remain on the ballot paper as we already have a referendum in 2016 where the options were leave or remain were on the ballot paper and we all know the outcome.

If there is a 2nd referendum the options on the ballot paper should be 

1. Accept and proceed with the deal agreed between the UK and EU (whatever that ends up being)?
2. Proceed with no deal.

2 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

 So there we have it; a Remainer is allowed to change his mind, Brexiteers aren't!

 

Boris changed his mind before the campaigning started. If that had no effect on how people voted, why have a campaign in the first place?

 

If the campaign had no effect on how people voted, why the obsession with the so called 'Project Fear' displayed by so many Brexiteers?

Most people I know made up their minds which way to vote themselves I don't know of anyone that voted either for remain or leave because someone well known declared the direction of how they were going to vote the only exception to that rule I do know many people that decided to vote leave after Tony stuck his oar in

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

If you did respond, I must have missed it; apologies.

 

Regarding your points:

 

a) If true, why are you so afraid of holding one?

 

b) The same could be said of each and every referendum ever held. After all, constitutionally it is parliament which is the supreme sovereign, not the people. Parliament ceded that sovereignty to the people in 1975 and again in 2016 when the then Prime Ministers promised that, although technically and legally advisory, the government would act on the results of the referendums. They could easily do so again.

 

c) I agree with you about PR, but not compulsory voting. To my mind the democratic right to vote includes the democratic right not to vote. The question of expats retaining their voting rights for life is a difficult one. How would it work for local elections? Which Parliamentary constituency would they vote in? Etc..

 

The bottom line is that a leading Brexiteer was actually a Remainer until he changed his mind a mere two weeks before the campaigning begun. To be kind, as he wrote two lengthy article just prior to this, one arguing for Remain, the other for Leave, I will conclude that he weighed up all the pros and cons of both sides before making a decisions.

 

If he is allowed to do so, then the British people should be given that chance.Especially now that the full effects of Brexit are far more widely known than they were then.

 

I have said before that I would have three questions on the ballot paper:

1. Accept and proceed with the deal agreed between the UK and EU (whatever that ends up being)?
2. Proceed with no deal.
3. Abandon Brexit and remain in the EU.

Using a single transferable vote system to eliminate the option with the lowest votes and transferring those votes to those people's second choice if there was no option with a clear majority after the first count.

 

Thoughts?

The difference is Boris made his mind up before the Vote and not after the Vote

and there should be a 4th option on your ballot paper 

4) Remain in the EU and accept anything from the EU such as EU army, Joining the Euro, abolish house of commons, abolish house of Lords transfer of alll power and decision making to Brussels