5 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Lets have a third, forth and fifth. Lets have one straight after the second one Lets have one every two years. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds.

 

If the people remain divided and unsatisfied then why would anyone seek to prevent the people having referendums until they can find a solution that unites them?  There is nothing that sounds ridiculous in giving the people further levels of democracy, nothing at all, but there is something quote absurd in listening to people pretend that referendums are suddenly undemocratic once they fear that they might lose one.

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If the people remain divided and unsatisfied then why would anyone seek to prevent the people having referendums until they can find a solution that unites them?  There is nothing that sounds ridiculous in giving the people further levels of democracy, nothing at all, but there is something quote absurd in listening to people pretend that referendums are suddenly undemocratic once they fear that they might lose one.

I think what you are trying to say is, let them keep voting untill I get the result that makes me happy.

5 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Not correct at all.

 

Would you and all the Remainers be happy if there was a second referendum but before it was completed it was abandoned in favour of a 3rd referendum?

 

A simple yes or no answer.

Baiting attempt ignored. 

35 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

A second referendum represents freedom of choice. 

Accepting the first referendum actually represents freedom of choice. 

Just now, Jingthing said:

Baiting attempt ignored. 

Not a baiting attempt at all.

 

Just a simple question as I disagreed with your reply.

 

You are one who is complaining about leavers not wanting a second referendum.

 

Of course I didn't really expect a yes or no answer from you anyway.

3 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The Labor leadership have said this only to try and stop more MP's leaving their party in frustration and anger. They don't believe parliament would support any motion for a second referendum - not enough support across the house. So they can promise this knowing it's not likely to ever happen. According to the BBC analyst.

 

Corbyn is trying to get his own way whilst keeping his party together; in much the same way May is.

 

Neither give a fig for the electorate, the country and it's future.

Good post, and points accepted. Both party leaderships are putting party before country, and it makes for sickening viewing. The bulk of our politicians have sunk even further than before. to a level marginally above the true vermin like Farage.

 

BBC analysts can be wrong. Corbyn and McDonnell have finally been dragged kicking and screaming to the altar, and apart from a dwindling looney fringe of McCluskey, Field, Hoey, Skinner, Stringer etc, the bulk of LP MPs, and the overwhelming majority of members back another referendum. So do the SNP and other smaller parties. The DUP are still most concerned with creationism so forget them. Then there are the Tory remainers. There may yet be a parliamentary majority as other options disappear, Interesting times indeed. 

24 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If the people remain divided and unsatisfied then why would anyone seek to prevent the people having referendums until they can find a solution that unites them?  There is nothing that sounds ridiculous in giving the people further levels of democracy, nothing at all, but there is something quote absurd in listening to people pretend that referendums are suddenly undemocratic once they fear that they might lose one.

How many more times? Remain will be stuffed by a far bigger margin therefore "Bring it on!"

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

‘In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.’

(Nigel Farage)

 

Though to to be fair, I’m sure he wishes he could put his gob into reverse on that one.

 

 

He did say something along those lines.

 

But I've no doubt he wouldn't have been IMMEDIATELY challenging for another referendum.

 

IMO he meant that he and ukip would continue to pursue their cause.

2 hours ago, tebee said:

No the choice is the new deal is going to be May's deal or forget the whole stupid idea 

Wrong. How clueless can you get ? I repeat, Remain has already been eliminated. 

22 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Baiting attempt ignored. 

Wriggling attempt logged.

21 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think what you are trying to say is, let them keep voting untill I get the result that makes me happy.

 

No, saying nothing of the sort.  Those who don't want another vote are saying 'I don't care if the majority are not happy, I am, so no second referendum'.  While what I am saying is until the majority are happy we need to keep addressing this issue, see the difference between those who do not want a refendum and me and what you tried to project from them onto me? 

 

Finally Corbyn has some plan. Hopefully UK public will follow him and not the "Me or the chaos" Lady. 

20 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If the people remain divided and unsatisfied then why would anyone seek to prevent the people having referendums until they can find a solution that unites them?  There is nothing that sounds ridiculous in giving the people further levels of democracy, nothing at all, but there is something quote absurd in listening to people pretend that referendums are suddenly undemocratic once they fear that they might lose one.

Actually the issue here isn't to do with how many democratic processes there are. If people want more, and parliament votes accordingly, fine, have more. The issue is, if you have a democratic process that the public is promised will be honored, whether it be a general election, a referendum or whatever, but after that democratic process, the outcome isn't honored, isn't implemented, well then, every democratic process henceforth is totally pointless, because whatever the outcome, it can just be ignored.

 

Regarding fear, i think this is why remainers refuse to allow the 2016 be respected first before having another vote. They fear that just like their predictions regarding what would happen the very day after a vote to leave happened, were found to be untrue, their predictions regarding what will happen if and when we do actually leave, will also be found to be false.

29 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If the people remain divided and unsatisfied then why would anyone seek to prevent the people having referendums until they can find a solution that unites them?  There is nothing that sounds ridiculous in giving the people further levels of democracy, nothing at all, but there is something quote absurd in listening to people pretend that referendums are suddenly undemocratic once they fear that they might lose one.

Further levels of democracy - meaning reruns til we get what we want.

2 minutes ago, sawadee1947 said:

Finally Corbyn has some plan. Hopefully UK public will follow him and not the "Me or the chaos" Lady. 

A panic plan, primarily to try and stop his gang from imploding.

6 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, saying nothing of the sort.  Those who don't want another vote are saying 'I don't care if the majority are not happy, I am, so no second referendum'.  While what I am saying is until the majority are happy we need to keep addressing this issue, see the difference between those who do not want a refendum and me and what you tried to project from them onto me? 

 

The majority were happy until the minority started trying to thwart the vote. This interference commenced as soon as the referendum result was known. 

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

A panic plan, primarily to try and stop his gang from imploding.

I agree to a certain extent. However it's good to see that a second referendum or a limited/unlimited delay of leaving EU is a fair option. In the meantime UK got time to chase away all incompetent politicians. They might be not many left I'm afraid 

7 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The majority were happy until the minority started trying to thwart the vote. This interference commenced as soon as the referendum result was known. 

That's not quite right. The unhappiness started when people realized they might not get fresh tomatoes or bananas but cabbage and potatoes, or can't get their medicines. Or can't visit visa free EU countries. And this only for 90days. 

17 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Actually the issue here isn't to do with how many democratic processes there are. If people want more, and parliament votes accordingly, fine, have more. The issue is, if you have a democratic process that the public is promised will be honored, whether it be a general election, a referendum or whatever, but after that democratic process, the outcome isn't honored, isn't implemented, well then, every democratic process henceforth is totally pointless, because whatever the outcome, it can just be ignored.

 

Regarding fear, i think this is why remainers refuse to allow the 2016 be respected first before having another vote. They fear that just like their predictions regarding what would happen the very day after a vote to leave happened, were found to be untrue, their predictions regarding what will happen if and when we do actually leave, will also be found to be false.

 

Its not been ignored, we have been negotiating our exit yet as it is not going well and the public were mislead regarding the realities of leaving it is not ignoring the result to ask the people how they want to proceed.

30 minutes ago, evadgib said:

How many more times? Remain will be stuffed by a far bigger margin therefore "Bring it on!"

 

Great, so we are agreed.  But sorry to break it to you but all polls point to a large majority supporting remain these days.

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

Yeah, I can see why people can't accept it.

It was subject to manipulation by Putin and also the leave campaign used blatant lies about national health to win it (narrowly).

Now that there is more light on all that, and also understanding of what kind of deal is possible (or no deal) the people could have a chance to make a much more informed choice.

 

If the basis for the argument for having another referendum is that people didn't know what they were voting for in 2016, do you really think that of the three options that most remainers seem to want as a choice - May's 600 page deal / no deal / scrap the whole thing - people will know any better what they are voting for?

 

To know what you were voting for with Choice 1: May's deal, to begin with, you'd need to read and understand that 600 page document. How many voters will be doing that? And then, since that document only deals with the terms of departure, not with the new agreements outside of the EU once we have left, you'll need to get a crystal ball to find out what those agreements will be.

 

With Choice 2: "no deal", voters have nothing concrete whatsoever to go on. Believe in the remainers and the world will come to an end. Believe in leavers and let the good times roll.

 

With Choice 3: "scrap the whole thing", it's not known what terms Britain would remain under. May be same as before. May not. What you can comfortably expect though is that the EU would taken even less seriously Britain calling for reform because what is Britain going to do if it doesn't like EU policy? Threaten to leave?! You'd have the EU bureaucrats splitting their sides laughing so much.

 

At least with the 2016 referendum, regardless of how well people understood matters, they were simply deciding on a direction of travel. To go left or to go right. How we get to where we are going, was to be left to the politicians. Now you want people getting involved in something far more complicated, and with as many unknowns as ever there were.

19 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Further levels of democracy - meaning reruns til we get what we want.

 

No, meaning further involvement from the public until something in the way of a consensus is reached.  Did you just confuse the will of 15 million people a couple years ago with the democratic rights of 67 million people today?

5 hours ago, Grouse said:

Brexit is getting complex and interesting now.

 

Several amendments will be debated this week

 

1) Corbyn - support soft Brexit with SM and CU or go to the people

 

2) Yvette Cooper/Oliver Letwin. If no deal agreed by 13 March, parliament takes control and implements A50 extension of indeterminate length

 

3) Kyle. Go with May's deal but follow with ratification by referendum. May's deal or remain

 

4) A N other Tory. Fixed 2 month extension

 

5) EU suggestion. Delay until 2021 to get new trade deal in place and thus avoid the backstop.

 

Interesting times. Naturally, MPs don't want Brexit (apart from the money grubbing ERG bastards) but they don't want to be blamed for doing the right thing!

 

I posted this on another thread but more appropriate here as it discusses multiple options in play. It's a point of order really! Have I broken a rule? If so, will delete.

You've not broken a rule, but you have exposed yourself as just one more thick euro groveller.

17 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The majority were happy until the minority started trying to thwart the vote. This interference commenced as soon as the referendum result was known.  

 

Complete tosh, the public found out the lies they had been told, that there was no money, that there will not be less immigrants, that it will not be easier for the Commonwealth countries to come, that we will not be better off, that we will not have the upperhand in the negotiation, that nothing was like they told them it would be, then the majority backed remain.  Anyway, if you accept that the majority are not happy to leave then why are you bleating about why they changed their mind and not just getting on with supporting their rightful choice to remain?

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Its not been ignored, we have been negotiating our exit yet as it is not going well and the public were mislead regarding the realities of leaving it is not ignoring the result to ask the people how they want to proceed.

 

 

2 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Still waiting for the proof not what could happen to prove it.

How exactly do we prove it otherwise - ask each one of the 17.4 million individually ?

 

OK you start at John o'groats  and I'll start at land's End, we can meet  in 10 year time somewhere round Manchester to compare notes

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

How exactly do we prove it otherwise - ask each one of the 17.4 million individually ?

 

OK you start at John o'groats  and I'll start at land's End, we can meet  in 10 year time somewhere round Manchester to compare notes

So that's a no then. As I thought.

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

So that's a no then.

The only way to prove it conclusively is with another referendum 

 

Otherwise you are asking for something that is impossible.

 

Bit like Brexit really.... 

4 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Complete tosh, the public found out the lies they had been told, that there was no money, that there will not be less immigrants, that it will not be easier for the Commonwealth countries to come, that we will not be better off, that we will not have the upperhand in the negotiation, that nothing was like they told them it would be, then the majority backed remain. 

No money? That's a lie. There will be extra money. How much is the grey area.

 

Will not be less immigrants. That's a lie. How many immigrants there will be, will be up to the government post leaving the EU. If the government wants to close borders, it can. If the government wants to throw them open to all and sundry, it can do that too. There's nothing in the system that would prevent the government from controlling immigration down to the last person, if it wanted. It's a case of whether government wants to. Outside of the EU, it will be totally down to our politicians to decide. People can then vote at a general election on whether they agree.

 

will not be easier for the Commonwealth countries to come Again, a lie. See above.

 

we will not be better off Lie. We may be better off. We may be worse off. Nobody knows until we leave and times is given to reestablish trade agreements.

 

we will not have the upperhand in the negotiation We haven't had the upper hand that is true. Well done for getting something half right. Parliament has been a directionless shambles. That's why. Had we just announced that we were leaving on day one without a deal, and left it to the EU to come to us if they wanted to come to another arrangement, we would have had the upper hand and all this mess would have been avoided. We didn't do that, and so we are where we are.

 

then the majority backed remain What majority backed remain?

22 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, meaning further involvement from the public until something in the way of a consensus is reached.  Did you just confuse the will of 15 million people a couple years ago with the democratic rights of 67 million people today?

A majority vote was achieved via the referendum. It's your numbers that are confusing.