UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[My Thai Life]

11 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

To reiterate, I was saying that the HoL would presumably not meet with the approval, since it is an unelected body of the type they appear to despise.

Well, still not clear, is it?

 

As for twisting, if you want to quote comparisons of the British democratic system with Nazis and totalitarian states, just take responsibility for your quotes, don't try to twist your way out of it.

[My Thai Life]

I do have a rather interesting question.

 

We've heard a lot about how leave voters are uninformed, untintelligent, uneducated, racist (please check the history, rather than accusing me again of flaming - thanks whoever did that).

 

But voting remain means voting for an undefined "ever closer union". So it's a bit like voting to get on a conveyor belt to an unknown destination. What did individual remain voters believe the end destination of their vote was? It was never defined. It still hasn't been. So what did you think you were voting for?

[Stupooey]

25 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Well, still not clear, is it?

 

As for twisting, if you want to quote comparisons of the British democratic system with Nazis and totalitarian states, just take responsibility for your quotes, don't try to twist your way out of it.

Of course I was trying to say that the HoL would presumably not meet with the approval of Brexit supporters. I tried to edit my post, but for some reason was not allowed to. And please stop banging on about comparisons between the UK, Nazis and Stalin. Read the article I quoted from again - the writer goes out of his way to say he is not making a comparison, is that so difficult to understand? Also if you check back you will see the only reason I had to add that excerpt was that a poster could not understand the fairly simple comment I had made previously, so I had to put it in context.

[My Thai Life]

Your quotee goes out of his way to say that he is not making a comparison as an introduction to making a comparison.

And you quoted it, but take no responsibility for your quote?

Sounds like we're entering 1984 doublespeak here.

But could we move on please, if you don't mind.

 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

When did I say the House of Lords does not meet with my approval? You keep trying to twist my words or pretending not to understand simple concepts. Why?

To reiterate, I was saying that the HoL would presumably not meet with the approval, since it is an unelected body of the type they appear to despise.

Bit like Juncker then?

[aright]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Bit like Juncker then?

Yes!

Salary £246000 pa

Residential Allowance £37000

Expense Allowance £1100 per month

Pension £52000 pa from age 65 for life.

He's really worth it isn't he. 

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

2 out of 3, 3 out of 5, 5 out of 7 etc

 

Where do you call a halt?

 

That is also democracy.

 

 

 

For BOTH sides.

Who said both sides can’t call for another vote? 

 

Not me.

 

There is no reason why there should not be a vote on the final brexit deal. 

 

To deny this is authoritarian anti democratic thinking. 

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Who said both sides can’t call for another vote? 

 

Not me.

 

There is no reason why there should not be a vote on the final brexit deal. 

 

To deny this is authoritarian anti democratic thinking. 

 

I am not denying that, but where do stop voting?

 

What will the question(s) be?

 

What will be the acceptable percentage level for a win? 50, 60 or even 75%? Would that be of ALL allowable voters or just the people who bothered to get off their arrssse and vote?

 

What happens if the pass level is not met, does it start again?

 

The first 2 or 3 clear votes on either side, whoever won the last of 3, 5 or 7 referendums?

 

What will the cost of each referendum be and who should foot the bill? Those who won, those who lost or the general public through taxation?

[rixalex]

The statements I made on authoritarian and anti democratic tendencies are based on brexiteers statements. 
 
no hypocrisy there. 
 
I see you’ve finally found at least one of the brexiteers arguing against there being another vote.
 
Keep looking there are others. 
 
You've given no reasons why there cannot be another vote on a final brexit deal.
 
You’ve said why you don’t want one, but that’s not enough. 
 
People are entitled to call and campaign for a vote on a final deal. 
 
It’s their democratic right.
 
To deny any such possibility is authoritarianism.  
 

Everybody has a right to call for a referendum. Nobody has argued that anybody be prohibited from doing so. Just as, contrary to your repeated accusations, nobody has argued that there never be a referendum again. More straw man arguments.

The real question is, should there be another referendum in the coming months on the final deal?

The problem, as I see it, with having another referendum so shortly after the last one is two fold. Firstly, how will the country ever get out of the cycle of referendums? The side that loses, unless they lose by a large margin, will simply give it a year or two, or maybe less, and then say that another referendum is required to confirm whether or not the people agree with the direction of things. With the precedent having been set for back to back referendums, it will become hard to argue against them. In the sake of fairness, the danger is we'll be forever locked into a perpetual cycle of referendums.

The second problem is, as I've already stated, a referendum on the final deal gives the EU the critical upper hand in the negotiations with Britain (if they don't already have it what with the shambles the government is making of it), in that they no longer have anything to fear by offering a bad deal to Britain, because they can sit back safe in the knowledge that the British people will have little choice but to vote it down, and if they don't, who cares, the EU won't be suffering, Britain will.

Now to anybody who truly cares about two things:

1) Brexit being given a fair chance to succeed

2) Democracy not being undermined and devalued for the long term

those two problems are real and genuine and need to be addressed in some way before another referendum is held. Saying that something isn't a problem doesn't make it not a problem just because you have so declared, unless you can explain why.

If you can't explain why and in truth just don't care because you are simply more concerned with finding a way of reversing what you see as being a bad decision by the British people in 2016, than anything else, well them have the intellectual honesty and the backbone to say so.

Masquerading as an agenda-free impartial onlooker who is simply on the side of democracy (a la Ms. Miller), doesn't fool anyone.





Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mommysboy]

13 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

I do have a rather interesting question.

 

We've heard a lot about how leave voters are uninformed, untintelligent, uneducated, racist (please check the history, rather than accusing me again of flaming - thanks whoever did that).

 

But voting remain means voting for an undefined "ever closer union". So it's a bit like voting to get on a conveyor belt to an unknown destination. What did individual remain voters believe the end destination of their vote was? It was never defined. It still hasn't been. So what did you think you were voting for?

 

'Undefined' just about sums up the Brexit referendum full stop, end of, period.

 

Sadly, it only determined that we should leave....

 

 

[mommysboy]

12 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

Who said both sides can’t call for another vote? 

 

Not me.

 

There is no reason why there should not be a vote on the final brexit deal. 

 

To deny this is authoritarian anti democratic thinking. 

Just to clarify, a second referendum should not corrupt the integrity of the original one- that was to leave.  If that is accepted, then a vote on the deal seems eminently sensible.

[Bluespunk]

12 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Everybody has a right to call for a referendum. Nobody has argued that anybody be prohibited from doing so. Just as, contrary to your repeated accusations, nobody has argued that there never be a referendum again. More straw man arguments.

The real question is, should there be another referendum in the coming months on the final deal?

The problem, as I see it, with having another referendum so shortly after the last one is two fold. Firstly, how will the country ever get out of the cycle of referendums? The side that loses, unless they lose by a large margin, will simply give it a year or two, or maybe less, and then say that another referendum is required to confirm whether or not the people agree with the direction of things. With the precedent having been set for back to back referendums, it will become hard to argue against them. In the sake of fairness, the danger is we'll be forever locked into a perpetual cycle of referendums.

The second problem is, as I've already stated, a referendum on the final deal gives the EU the critical upper hand in the negotiations with Britain (if they don't already have it what with the shambles the government is making of it), in that they no longer have anything to fear by offering a bad deal to Britain, because they can sit back safe in the knowledge that the British people will have little choice but to vote it down, and if they don't, who cares, the EU won't be suffering, Britain will.

Now to anybody who truly cares about two things:

1) Brexit being given a fair chance to succeed

2) Democracy not being undermined and devalued for the long term

those two problems are real and genuine and need to be addressed in some way before another referendum is held. Saying that something isn't a problem doesn't make it not a problem just because you have so declared, unless you can explain why.

If you can't explain why and in truth just don't care because you are simply more concerned with finding a way of reversing what you see as being a bad decision by the British people in 2016, than anything else, well them have the intellectual honesty and the backbone to say so.

Masquerading as an agenda-free impartial onlooker who is simply on the side of democracy (a la Ms. Miller), doesn't fool anyone.





Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Not masquerading as anything. I have never hidden the fact I think brexit is going to be an economic disaster. 

 

I, however, do not live in the U.K. so I would not vote in any referendum. That should be reserved only for those who live there. 

 

There is is absolutely no justification for denying another vote on a final deal in my view and nothing you say changes that. 

 

There are others who would do so and I have given you two posts doing so in a post following the one you just quoted. 

[Bluespunk]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Just to clarify, a second referendum should not corrupt the integrity of the original one- that was to leave.  If that is accepted, then a vote on the deal seems eminently sensible.

I don’t see why a don’t leave option can’t be included. 

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Everybody has a right to call for a referendum. Nobody has argued that anybody be prohibited from doing so. Just as, contrary to your repeated accusations, nobody has argued that there never be a referendum again. More straw man arguments.

The real question is, should there be another referendum in the coming months on the final deal?

The problem, as I see it, with having another referendum so shortly after the last one is two fold. Firstly, how will the country ever get out of the cycle of referendums? The side that loses, unless they lose by a large margin, will simply give it a year or two, or maybe less, and then say that another referendum is required to confirm whether or not the people agree with the direction of things. With the precedent having been set for back to back referendums, it will become hard to argue against them. In the sake of fairness, the danger is we'll be forever locked into a perpetual cycle of referendums.

The second problem is, as I've already stated, a referendum on the final deal gives the EU the critical upper hand in the negotiations with Britain (if they don't already have it what with the shambles the government is making of it), in that they no longer have anything to fear by offering a bad deal to Britain, because they can sit back safe in the knowledge that the British people will have little choice but to vote it down, and if they don't, who cares, the EU won't be suffering, Britain will.

Now to anybody who truly cares about two things:

1) Brexit being given a fair chance to succeed

2) Democracy not being undermined and devalued for the long term

those two problems are real and genuine and need to be addressed in some way before another referendum is held. Saying that something isn't a problem doesn't make it not a problem just because you have so declared, unless you can explain why.

If you can't explain why and in truth just don't care because you are simply more concerned with finding a way of reversing what you see as being a bad decision by the British people in 2016, than anything else, well them have the intellectual honesty and the backbone to say so.

Masquerading as an agenda-free impartial onlooker who is simply on the side of democracy (a la Ms. Miller), doesn't fool anyone.





Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

A second referendum would be about the nature of the deal- which sadly wasn't clarified in the original vote.  Thus, it does not interfere with the integrity of the Brexit vote which still has to be respected.  Anyone purporting to support democracy would surely agree with this.

 

 

[Bluespunk]

20 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I am not denying that, but where do stop voting?

 

What will the question(s) be?

 

What will be the acceptable percentage level for a win? 50, 60 or even 75%? Would that be of ALL allowable voters or just the people who bothered to get off their arrssse and vote?

 

What happens if the pass level is not met, does it start again?

 

The first 2 or 3 clear votes on either side, whoever won the last of 3, 5 or 7 referendums?

 

What will the cost of each referendum be and who should foot the bill? Those who won, those who lost or the general public through taxation?

The first brexit referendum has opened this Pandora’s box. There is no justification for saying there can only be one and that’s it 

 

Those calling for another on the issue have every right to do so, especially as it has become a lot clearer what brexit really means since that vote. 

[mommysboy]

8 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I don’t see why a don’t leave option can’t be included. 

Because that would just be an underhand way of having a second Brexit referendum.  And that puts us in to another endless wrangle- What's to stop the leave side then demanding best of 3?

 

Like it or lump it the country voted to leave.  As someone who doesn't think that's a very good idea that sickens me quite frankly, but democracy has to be respected. 

 

The upshot is that I think the unintended consequence will be Conservatives out of power for 30 years or more, possibly the end of said party, and quite possibly Britain's first truly Socialist government- and that might well suit the millions of people who really don't have a shot at what might be termed middle class aspiration. 

 

At the least I think the majority of youngsters will conclude democracy sucks, if it just leads to old people making dumb decisions, and then moaning because they can't bring about their desired ends.

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

A second referendum would be about the nature of the deal- which sadly wasn't clarified in the original vote.  Thus, it does not interfere with the integrity of the Brexit vote which still has to be respected.  Anyone purporting to support democracy would surely agree with this.

 

 

We have been told by the remainers for the last 18 months that referendums are not legally binding, why are all of a sudden are the remainers doing a U turn, interesting.

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Because that would just be an underhand way of having a second Brexit referendum.  And that puts us in to another endless wrangle- What's to stop the leave side then demanding best of 3?

 

Like it or lump it the country voted to leave.  As someone who doesn't think that's a very good idea that sickens me quite frankly, but democracy has to be respected. 

 

The upshot is that I think the unintended consequence will be Conservatives out of power for 30 years or more, possibly the end of said party, and quite possibly Britain's first truly Socialist government- and that might well suit the millions of people who really don't have a shot at what might be termed middle class aspiration. 

 

At the least I think the majority of youngsters will conclude democracy sucks, if it just leads to old people making dumb decisions, and then moaning because they can't bring about their desired ends.

I’m sorry but, why can there not be a don’t leave option?

 

The brexiteers must be sure they’ll win. 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

We have been told by the remainers for the last 18 months that referendums are not legally binding, why are all of a sudden are the remainers doing a U turn, interesting.

Well, for my part there are 2 reasons:

 

1. You simply can't replay a cup final because your team lost.

 

2.  I think that whatever happens now the Tories will be out of power for 30 years.

 

Incidentally, I'm not a remainer as such just a pragmatist.  I really don't mind leaving, but not in a bungled, incoherent way that threatens national interest. 

[vogie]

Just now, mommysboy said:

Well, for my part there are 2 reasons:

 

1. You simply can't replay a cup final because your team lost.

 

2.  I think that whatever happens now the Tories will be out of power for 30 years.

However bad the Tories are, they are still head and shoulders above the other lot, but agree with point 1.

[whatsupdoc]

13 hours ago, nauseus said:

Bit like Juncker then?

Like it or not, but Juncker was elected to his position.

But what else can we expect? The whole of Brexit was based on lies.

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I’m sorry but, why can there not be a don’t leave option?

 

The brexiteers must be sure they’ll win. 

Whether you or I like it or not, they already have won!  To get back to the FA Cup analogy, why should the winner be expected to play again?  It is a one shot deal.

 

A pyrrhic victory in my view.

 

 

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, whatsupdoc said:

Like it or not, but Juncker was elected to his position.

But what else can we expect? The whole of Brexit was based on lies.

So was the remainers campaign, but that side of it is not important to you. So can we say your post is biased.

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

However bad the Tories are, they are still head and shoulders above the other lot, but agree with point 1.

Your view. God help us all then!  Because I can't imagine much worse than the shower we currently have. I don't ever recall such a useless government.

[Bluespunk]

3 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

Whether you or I like it or not, they already have won!  To get back to the FA Cup analogy, why should the winner be expected to play again?  It is a one shot deal.

 

A pyrrhic victory in my view.

 

 

 

 

The FA Cup analogy fails because they do replay it every year and every team is involved again. 

 

Including the winner. 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Your view. God help us all then!  Because I can't imagine much worse than the shower we currently have. I don't ever recall such a useless government.

You think Corbyn, McDonnall and Abbott will be a better replacement government, seriously.

[mommysboy]

Just now, Bluespunk said:

The FA Cup analogy fails because they do replay it every year and every team is involved again. 

Good point, but referenda do not happen every year and I think this one was billed as a once and for all.

 

So sadly, it's only the exact analogy that fails.

[Bluespunk]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Good point, but referenda do not happen every year and I think this one was billed as a once and for all.

 

So sadly, it's only the exact analogy that fails.

There we disagree. 

[mommysboy]

Just now, vogie said:

You think Corbyn, McDonnall and Abbott will be a better replacement government, seriously.

Frankly, I guess I am a usually a moderate social democrat, but after all that's happened I would vote for any fully socialist platform, not the least because democracy has been shown up as not serving the people.

 

 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

Frankly, I guess I am a usually a moderate social democrat, but after all that's happened I would vote for any fully socialist platform, not the least because democracy has been shown up as not serving the people.

 

 

Can I just say I am no way againgst a Labour Government, my family voted Labour all their lives, but if they were alive today to see (especially the top three stooges) I would imagine they would vote for the monster raving loony party first. Whether they are negotiating brexit or running the country I feel they would be a total disaster.