Who are these people that want another referendum, it would seem that the only people are the remainers and the MPs, and they are the parliamentarians that didn't want to leave in the first place. There is no appetite for another referendum, we had one 3 years ago, you know, the one that was never going to be repeated.

 

28 minutes ago, candide said:

You can go on dreaming as much as you want that a significantly better deal was achievable......

It will not change reality. The EU position was predictable from the start and quite in line with previous agreements made, I.e. Norway, Switzerland, Canada, etc...

No comparison. This "agreement" is a treaty of entrapment that will bind the UK into:

 

Potentially poor trade and customs union arrangements.

 

UK defence and security under EU control.

 

Have the UK remain subject to large parts of EU Law and rules, with possible penalties for up to 4 years after the end of any transition period.

 

The backstop splits off NI into a separate customs territory.

 

Limits aid to British farmers.

 

And only the EU can set us free. It is akin to a surrender and nobody should sign the damn thing.

Edited April 13, 20197 yr by nauseus

There will be no brexit. Period

Because in history books mentioned creation and destruction of USA. 

Leaving Americans with the only powerful and effective reaction ww3.

That's why EU and NATO are the aftermath as all chapters became facts so, it is not going to be easy EU leave.

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Who are these people that want another referendum, it would seem that the only people are the remainers and the MPs, and they are the parliamentarians that didn't want to leave in the first place. There is no appetite for another referendum, we had one 3 years ago, you know, the one that was never going to be repeated.

 

3 years can be as long a term as a government runs....things are very different now and any true democracy has a, right to change....so a G/E or referendum it is........get over it, as they say.

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

How can you have a second referendum while the first referendum has not been completed yet?

 Because ,  it is not achievable , dream on .

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

No comparison. This "agreement" is a treaty of entrapment that will bind the UK into:

 

Potentially poor trade and customs union arrangements.

 

UK defence and security under EU control.

 

Have the UK remain subject to large parts of EU Law and rules, with possible penalties for up to 4 years after the end of any transition period.

 

The backstop splits off NI into a separate customs territory.

 

Limits aid to British farmers.

 

And only the EU can set us free. It is akin to a surrender and nobody should sign the damn thing.

My point was not wether it is good or not for UK, I leave it to personal appreciation. It was that it was quite predictable, and that other negociators would probably not have obtained a significantly better deal.

39 minutes ago, elliss said:

 Because ,  it is not achievable , dream on .

These responses just get worse.

10 minutes ago, candide said:

My point was not wether it is good or not for UK, I leave it to personal appreciation. It was that it was quite predictable, and that other negociators would probably not have obtained a significantly better deal.

Predictable ... possibly. Desirable...no way.

12 minutes ago, candide said:

My point was not wether it is good or not for UK, I leave it to personal appreciation. It was that it was quite predictable, and that other negociators would probably not have obtained a significantly better deal.

Any serious negotiation would have been rewarded with a seriously better deal. 

On 4/12/2019 at 2:40 PM, geoffbezoz said:

He is stating the obvious really. Other then to a blind right wing Brexiteer it is obvious that only a second referendum will resolve the issue.  Hopefully this time it will be based on facts rather than fear mongering and free of bribes to the DUP.  This time it needs to ask the question to voters do you agree with the Brexit agreement as currently negotiated Terms or not ? A No vote should automatically trigger the revocation of Article 50 to ensure no further ambiguity.

Well, but the outcome of this referendum is no obligation for the Govt to follow. 

Even in Splendid Isolation I expect the UK people to vote for the Club, for a strong future of Europe 

On 4/12/2019 at 2:23 PM, geoffbezoz said:

Depends whose or what lifetime is used as reference I guess.  There was one in my parents lifetime but already two in mine. However there were none in my pet dogs lifetime.

Assuming your parents are older 44 then they would have seen four referendums in their lifetime - The EC Membership in 1975, Alternative Vote in 2011, 2014 Scottish referendum and of course 2016.

 

On 4/12/2019 at 3:05 PM, Kadilo said:

For every view of yours someone will counter with “its not the Brexit we voted for “ so there is only one answer to stop the squabbling. 

 

If you’re right then it will sail through again. 

Then what will happen?

It won't change anything.

42 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

Assuming your parents are older 44 then they would have seen four referendums in their lifetime - The EC Membership in 1975, Alternative Vote in 2011, 2014 Scottish referendum and of course 2016.

 

I can see logic is not your strong point in an attempt to refute a statement of fact by another poster !!   As both my elderly parents passed away in the 1990,s ( 1993/1998), then  as I stated they only took part in one referendum in their lifetimes.

 

Further, I thought the Scottish Referendum was only applicable to those in Scotland ? I didn't realise the whole of the UK, like the 2016 referendum vote, had the opportunity to take part in the Scottish referendum also has you have suggested ????.

I read a suggestion that the Article 50 extension may be illegal and could be challenged in the courts - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/13/theresa-mays-article-50-extension-illegal-will-challenged-courts/

27 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

I read a suggestion that the Article 50 extension may be illegal and could be challenged in the courts - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/04/13/theresa-mays-article-50-extension-illegal-will-challenged-courts/

Well if that is progressed and found to be true, what a face saver in many respects. One person gets the blame ( if found to be illegal) and the 2 sides can continue the argument during the next general election which must surely be a near 100% possibility if the incumbent government is proven to have acted illegally.

 

But there again, this is only a Telegraph report who have just been ordered to publish a retraction of an article by Boris Johnson as that article contained unsubstantiated and inaccurate claims.

7 hours ago, wilcopops said:

3 years can be as long a term as a government runs....things are very different now and any true democracy has a, right to change....so a G/E or referendum it is........get over it, as they say.

Another thought provoking reply. Nobody is going to "get over it" untill democracy has been served, get used to it, as they say.

A general election, who is bothered, Cons or Lab, it's like voting for a 2" pile of dog muck or a 3" pile of dog muck. Neither of these parties deserve the time of day, we need some democracy back into British politics.

To put referendums in perspective.

“Referendums  are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, although they usually have a persuasive political effect.”

 

They are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. There have been 17 since 1973.

 

Traditionally both sides of British politics have been wary of referendums.

 

“ Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee refused, said "I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism."

In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher also quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are "a device of dictators and demagogues" as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past” - wiki

 

"Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation." - wiki

 

Of the 3 national referendums held since the 1970s 2 had a supermajority (two-thirds) whilst the 2016 on EU membership had only a tiny percentage.

Edited April 13, 20197 yr by wilcopops

14 minutes ago, vogie said:

Another thought provoking reply. Nobody is going to "get over it" untill democracy has been served, get used to it, as they say.

A general election, who is bothered, Cons or Lab, it's like voting for a 2" pile of dog muck or a 3" pile of dog muck. Neither of these parties deserve the time of day, we need some democracy back into British politics.

As parliament is sovereign in UK, a general election is the democratic way we choose our law makers or "dog muck" as you seem to perceive our democratic process.

7 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

As parliament is sovereign in UK, a general election is the democratic way we choose our law makers or "dog muck" as you seem to perceive our democratic process.

Sovereignty was handed back to the British electorate on the day of the EU referendum, have you conveniently forgotten this fact.

Edited April 13, 20197 yr by vogie

7 hours ago, nauseus said:

Any serious negotiation would have been rewarded with a seriously better deal. 

 

Facts are statements that can be proven true or false. 

 

Opinions are matters of belief or ideas that can't be proven one way or the other. 

Support for the referendum result seems to be ebbing away and with good reason....

 

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/matt-frei/man-who-wrote-article-50-it-should-be-revoked/

11 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

 

Facts are statements that can be proven true or false. 

 

Opinions are matters of belief or ideas that can't be proven one way or the other. 

This is a sad comment, but it sums up the level of argument on this and other threads.

This is categorically not what an opinion is.

And there is also a huge amount of weird ideas about use of what is perceived as fact, when they are really blindly held "beliefs".

An opinion is based on evidence and logic...in doesn't actually require "facts".

Most of the statements and counter arguments on this and other threads are neither facts nor opinions, they are just statements and bias and consequentially fallacious both in premise and conclusion.

 

 

2 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

An opinion is based on evidence and logic...in doesn't actually require "facts".

"opinion - a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge". Dictionary definition

Edited April 14, 20197 yr by ThaiBunny

Post of Wilcopops here above is 

an opinion. 

 

So is this post. 

Edited April 14, 20197 yr by luckyluke

30 minutes ago, vogie said:

Sovereignty was handed back to the British electorate on the day of the EU referendum, have you conveniently forgotten this fact.

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK constitution. You are completely inaccurate, yet you are claiming the use of that word again "fact"....... QED

10 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

That shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the UK constitution. You are completely inaccurate, yet you are claiming the use of that word again "fact"....... QED

Your old get out clause..........QED

49 minutes ago, wilcopops said:

To put referendums in perspective.

“Referendums  are by tradition extremely rare due to the principle of parliamentary sovereignty meaning that they cannot be constitutionally binding on either the Government or Parliament, although they usually have a persuasive political effect.”

 

They are occasionally held at a national, regional or local level. There have been 17 since 1973.

 

Traditionally both sides of British politics have been wary of referendums.

 

“ Deputy Prime Minister Clement Attlee refused, said "I could not consent to the introduction into our national life of a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and Fascism."

In March 1975 Margaret Thatcher also quoted Clement Attlee that referendums are "a device of dictators and demagogues" as Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler had exploited their use in the past” - wiki

 

"Legally, Parliament at any point in future could reverse legislation approved by referendum, because the concept of parliamentary sovereignty means no Parliament can prevent a future Parliament from amending or repealing legislation." - wiki

 

Of the 3 national referendums held since the 1970s 2 had a supermajority (two-thirds) whilst the 2016 on EU membership had only a tiny percentage.

If they didn't like the answer they shouldn't have asked the question.

48 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Post of Wilcopops here above is 

an opinion. 

 

So is this post. 

..and is based. On logic and evidence.

"Critical thinkers: distinguish between fact andopinion; ask questions; make detailed observations; uncover assumptions and define their terms; and make assertions based on sound logic and solid evidence"

 

Many of the statements made on this thread and others are based neither on logic nor evidence, they are largely prejudice and misinformation.

it is indicative of many posters rhat rhey are unable to make logical conclusions and are so limited as to think that a dictionary definition is some form of argument.

it shows they don't know how to use a dictionary or form an opinion.

Edited April 14, 20197 yr by metisdead
Oversize font reset to normal.

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Your old get out clause..........QED

That's right, because you keep on doing it...

Edited April 14, 20197 yr by wilcopops

1 minute ago, wilcopops said:

That's right, because you keep on doing it...

QED