rixalex

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

That was the “final choice” only for the leave-question. People were never presented a “final choice” for what happens after the leave, i.e. the transition period and the future relationship. 

 

We could argue now that people don’t need to have a say in that because it’s the job of parliament to decide. But it would be difficult to understand why people should have a say in only 1/3 of the key decisions required, especially since the other 2/3, apparently, cannot be solved by parliament. 

To repeat, it's not that they cannot be solved by parliament, it's that parliament doesn't want to solve them. That's parliament's problem. They agreed to do what the people told them, and now, they have changed their mind and don't want to. Tough.

27 minutes ago, Moonlover said:

Big problem there. Because a large majority of MPs voted for remain in the 2016 referendum. (over 400) So it's difficult to see what could possibly pacify  them. They quite simply don't want Brexit to happen at all. And in the end, I think they might win.

 

Yes i completely agree. They never wanted Brexit in the first place. They shouldn't have asked a question if they weren't prepared to accept the answer. That's what this all comes down to.

39 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Notice the vague threats from the Hard Brexiteers if things don't go their way?

I'm not a hard brexiteer. I'm a democrat. And it's not a threat, it's a prediction. If politicians promise to do something and then don't do it, there can be a reaction from the public. Plenty of examples of that throughout history. A matter of fact, not opinion.

48 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I believe most people look at things practically, and would prefer to find a solution over helping Cameron keep an unkeepable promise. 

His promise was that the decision would be upheld. He never said anything about easiest deal in history or how ever much extra money for the NHS. He just simply stated that a vote to leave would mean a complete departure from the EU. That's not an unkeepable promise, that's just a promise that you and other remainers don't want to see followed through on. There's a difference.

44 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The 2016 vote was never able to provide for a “final choice”. The final choice the UK now has is something different than what people were asked in 2016.

Yes it was. The final choice was to leave. How we left was up to the politicians to sort out. Just because they have made a mess of it, does not invalidate the decision. You could argue it invalidates the politicians, and you'd have a point.

4 hours ago, Samui Bodoh said:

i understand the Leavers desire to exit the EU, and I respect the referendum that was held. However, if a country tries to implement the most controversial public policy decision of the last 60+ years without some kind of consensus in the nation, terrible things will happen.

 

There will never be a consensus. That's not a reason for not implementing a democratic decision. General elections never result in a consensus, but the result still get delivered - well they do in functioning democracies.

For democracy to work it relies on the losers accepting the decision. In this case the losers, which account for more than 80% of parliament, haven't. That's why things are in a mess. If the losers had won 52/48, the result would have been delivered a long time ago. Terrible things will happen if they are allowed to get away with this. This isn't democracy.

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Plan that hasn't worked. Faced with a situation where the politicians are incapable of working out the finer details the whole nation should suffer the consequences of their failure. 

The turkeys really did vote for Christmas.

It's not that they are incapable of working out the finer details, it's that they don't want to.

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 I have previously explained what my option would be.

 

You chastise me for repeating the same question, yet do so yourself!

 

Here it is again for you.

 

Three options on a STV ballot:

1. Brexit on May's deal, whatever that turns out to be;
2. no deal Brexit;
3. cancel Article 50 and remain.

Got it now?

 

 

You need to read a little more carefully.

I asked you why it would be the "final choice". You have proceeded to explain what the choice would be. I already know that. You've already explained it.

The 2016 vote was supposed to settle the matter once and for all. The PM told us it was the "final choice" on many occasions before the vote. If you get your wish, and that vote was not the "final choice", why should we believe that another vote will be the "final choice"?

You only get to make that promise once with any meaning. Just as you only get to promise to implement whatever the public decides once. Don't bother making promises like that again, once you've broken them. The promises cease to have any meaning.

23 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

It would serve you better if you kept up to date!

 

Article 50: Law officer says UK can cancel Brexit

 

Brexit ruling: UK can cancel decision, EU court says

 

It is extending Article 50 beyond 29th March which requires the agreement of all 27.

 

Much of what you say in your following post is reasoned, even if I don't agree. But

Most Leavers in 2016 didn't know the consequences of what they were voting for. The Leave campaign never said what they believed would happen after Brexit (all the indications are that they didn't know!) and when the Remain campaign did, it was dismissed by leavers as 'Project Fear!'

 

Those of us here in the UK are fully aware that the consequences of both leaving and remaining have been much discussed since; they are discussed every day in the press, radio, TV and other media. The electorate are far more aware of the consequences of both leaving and remaining. Therefore much better able to make an informed choice.

 

You wish to deny them that informed choice, I wish to allow them it.

I stand corrected re the revoking of article 50. Yes, you are quite right. It was the day before the meaningful vote that the ECJ made the final ruling. Nothing political the timing of that decision at all of course.

Re your comments about people not knowing what they were voting for, as i have repeated many times, if that is the basis for voiding the 2016 vote outcome, the 2019, or whatever year it is, new referendum that you desire, will be subject to the exact same criticism and can be voided too, as the matter is as complex as ever and the unknowns are ever present.

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

How?

 

By giving the people the final choice?

 

It is denying them that choice which is against democracy.

Why would it be the "final choice"?

Are people's minds going to stop changing? Are old voters going to stop dying? If not, surely we'll need to go on checking the will of the people indefinitely, or else, it will be "against democracy".

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The large roundabout at Victory Monument in Bangkok seems to work OK. 

 

 

Only because it has traffic lights all the way around it, and if you are going to have traffic lights at a roundabout, you might just as well have a crossroads, because the whole benefit of the roundabout is lost.

4 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Brexit cancelled?

If Scotland voted for independence and the politicians failed to deliver it, and said, "sorry folks, it didn't work out, we'll just have to call the whole thing off", can you imagine all the Scots who voted for it just holding up their hands and saying, "yeah, fair enough, you gave it your best shot, not to worry"?

Brexit is going to happen. It can't be canceled. It's too late for that. It might not happen now, it might not happen this year or next, but it will happen, and until it does, this issue is never going to be resolved.

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

Yes, very much

I can't guess why.

Anyway, enjoy her duplicitous, sanctimonious clap trap while you can because she won't be an MP for much longer, i guarantee you that.

16 hours ago, 7by7 said:

I would point out, though, the ECJ ruling which confirms that were we to cancel Brexit before the deadline then we would remain in the EU on exactly the same terms as before. Though I agree that our relationship with the other 27 would be damaged, maybe irrevocably.

The ECJ ruling is not binding though, just advisory (where have i heard that word before?) and the EU have consistently said that it would need the consent of all 27 EU nations for article 50 to be revoked. If the EU is as mutually inclusive as remainers would have us believe, then surely all 27 nations should have a say on us being able to return on exactly the same terms as before.

I'm glad though to see we agree on the difficulty that Britain would have restoring relations in the EU, were Brexit scrapped and were we to return, tail between legs. I don't think it can be done. What we need is a fresh start, whatever happens. Rewinding the clock and trying to erase the last 3 years is never going to work. That's why, amongst many other reasons, Brexit must be delivered, and must be given a fair chance to fail or succeed. Then, and only then, can the country properly move forward and divisions be healed.

12 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can't abide Angela Loathsome 

And yet you like Anna Soubry.

9 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes, it tells me a lot about Brexiteers who saw him as their champion then and the many who still do.

 

Parrot? Only quote to point out it was an ardent Leaver who said 52/48 was too close to call and so should result in a second referendum. Can you find a similar quote from anyone on the remain side?

No, exactly, you can't. The only comment from remainers prior to the vote regarding a narrow victory meaning that the fight would go on, was along the lines of Farage being a sore loser. If there were any remainer on record as having said that Farage actually had a valid point, then you could argue that remainers were simply sticking to their principles. They didn't and they aren't.

Show me a remainer who would now be in agreement with having another referendum had remain won, and i'll show you a liar. You want another referendum because you lost and you are sore losers.

4 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Now that the consequences of each option are much clearer than they were in 2016, the people should be given the final choice in a single transferable vote ballot; May's deal, no deal or cancel Brexit and remain.

 

If, as so many Brexiteers insist, support for Brexit is stronger than ever, why are so many afraid of another referendum?

 

 

But the consequences aren't any clearer.

May's deal is a 600 page document. Who is going to read it all? Plus, May's deal only concerns the withdrawal. It doesn't say anything about what the deals will be once we are out. That is as unknown as it ever was.

No deal. What is really know about that? Remainers predict an apocalypse. Leavers predict a world of opportunities waiting for us. Who really knows?

Remaining in the EU. In spite of what some may have you believe, it is not cast in stone that we will simply be able to erase the events of the last three years and go back to how things were before. Even if we could do that, Britain's relationship with the EU will have changed thanks to the fact that the EU will know, whatever happens or whatever they do, we aren't going anywhere, so if Britain wants to push for EU reform, go ahead Britain and see how far it gets you, will be their mindset.

Just as many unknowns as before, and in addition, rather than a simple binary in or out question, the new vote will have three choices and voters asked to choose their preference in order. More involved and more complicated. If the 2016 vote can be ignored as you wish, on basis that people didn't know what they were voting for, and because people have changed their minds, that will be equally true of any new vote.

Unless a new vote were to deliver an overwhelming decision in one direction or the other, all a new vote will do is extend the uncertainty and divide the country further. Remainers though don't care about that. It's become a tribal thing in which all they care about is having another shot at winning a vote they still can't get their heads around having lost.