1 minute ago, evadgib said:

'They didn't know what they were voting for' hasn't worked from day one and is frankly patronising from the side that believe they did.

It's not patronising its a fact and has been a fact since day 1.

48 % wanted to remain. 

A kind of conservative/traditionalist approach (it wasn't not that bad, so why change).

 

52 % wanted to leave. 

A kind of audacious/reckless approach, (we don't know absolutely, but we are convinced it will be better). 

 

Sure, except some misfits, on both sides, the majority of both parties want the wellness of the nation, albeit in a different way. 

 

The Remainers now are afraid of the future. 

Over-reacting? 

 

The Leavers are self-assured.

Cocky? 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, petemoss said:

It's not patronising its a fact and has been a fact since day 1.

 

 

 

Have you not realized that claiming the higher ground results in further to fall.

13 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Leave's campaign made little or no mention of the economic effects of Brexit, no mention of the loss of free trade with the EU; no mention of the UK no longer being part of the EU's trade deals with the rest of the world: no mention that a no deal Brexit meant trading with everyone of WTO terms alone until we could negotiate deals with the |EU and others; no mention of the dire economic effects, job losses etc. a no deal Brexit would have.

It was stated quite clearly by David  Cameroon that leave meant completely leaving and that if the UK wanted to join a common market or free trade deals or whatever, the Uk would have to do that after we had left 

1 minute ago, petemoss said:

It's not patronising its a fact and has been a fact since day 1.

Quote

from the side that believe they did.

 

22 minutes ago, bannork said:

It beats me how they can hold a referendum with no details. Leave with what agreements, deals?

A stupid referendum.

So after 3 years Johnson is prepared to leave with no deals. Well let's see if the public agree with that by holding another referendum.

More democracy then. 

26 minutes ago, transam said:

It seems you still don't understand what the vote was for......????

 

To remind you, OUT the EU.......YES or NO....

Indeed, but  because it didn't specify how we should leave we have now ended up with the current impasse.

 

Roughly 33% want to leave with no deal, 10% with may's deal and 12% preferring a softer brexit  - whille 44% would prefer to remain anyway.

 

This gives politicians seeking to deliver brexit a dilemma - do the satisfy the 33% wanting no deal and upset 67% of the population or go for some compromise and hope both side accept it. The hard brexiters insistence that nothing short of nodeal is the true brexit makes the later seem unlikely.

 

So to politicians brexit has become a poisoned chalice - delivering any one version will upset more people than it pleases. They don't want to do this as they want those people to vote for them next time.

 

This in a nutshell is why we have the current impasse         

14 minutes ago, transam said:

Do you actually know what you're on about....?

Yes.

 

If it's too complicated for you, see if you can find someone to explain it to you in very simple words of one syllable.

19 minutes ago, transam said:

It seems you still don't understand what the vote was for......????

 

To remind you, OUT the EU.......YES or NO....

Stop being obtuse, vintage warbler of Pichit. There was no mention of out with no trade deals.

5 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It was stated quite clearly by David  Cameroon that leave meant completely leaving and that if the UK wanted to join a common market or free trade deals or whatever, the Uk would have to do that after we had left 

David Cameron was not a Leave supporter nor campaigner.

 

In fact, he was a prominent Remainer, so, as I said, any such warnings from him would have been, and were, dismissed by Leave and it's supporters as Project Fear.

25 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Indeed, the ballot paper did basically say that.

 

But the majority of those who voted did so based upon what had been said by each side in the campaign.

 

Leave's campaign made little or no mention of the economic effects of Brexit, no mention of the loss of free trade with the EU; no mention of the UK no longer being part of the EU's trade deals with the rest of the world: no mention that a no deal Brexit meant trading with everyone of WTO terms alone until we could negotiate deals with the |EU and others; no mention of the dire economic effects, job losses etc. a no deal Brexit would have.

 

Whenever a Remain campaigner did mention any of the above, Leave simply repeated their mantra 'Project Fear' as if that were some magic spell which would save us from our own folly.

 

But as you have claimed elsewhere that you paid no heed to any campaigning during the run rup to the referendum, you wont have known any of that!

 

The conditions which Remain, and many Brexiteers, want to apply retrospectively are contained in the deal we negotiate with the EU; whether it be May's deal or a new one. 

 

As Parliament has refused to agree to any such deal for MP's personal gain and party political reasons, many, myself included, believe that the issue should be put back to the people.

 

Accept the deal on offer, whatever it may be, or leave with no deal, or cancel the whole thing and remain.

 

Voters allowed to vote for their first and second preference. If no choice has 50% plus 1 of the votes then remove the option with the fewest votes and allocate the second choice on those papers accordingly.

 

You and other Brexiteers bang on about democracy, but are terrified of giving the people the ultimate democratic right to make this final decision; why?

 

Well, the answer's obvious!

Yes, obvious, we were given our ultimate democratic right 3 years ago...and used it.

2 minutes ago, sanemax said:

It was stated quite clearly by David  Cameroon that leave meant completely leaving and that if the UK wanted to join a common market or free trade deals or whatever, the Uk would have to do that after we had left 

Cameron was very negative about leaving, he led the remain campaign (no wonder the majority voted leave). However Johnson and Farage promised us that they would secure us a great deal that would be financially beneficial to the UK. That's why the many floating voters voted leave.

 

This was always a lie and the majority of remainers saw it as a lie. The government singularly failed to secure a deal which lived up to their promise and, furthermore, now advocating a no deal exit which couldn't be further from their pre referendum promises.

 

Brexiteers refuse to admit to these facts and, having nailed their colours to the mast, refuse to admit that they were wrong no matter how much damage they do to Britain. Patriots? I don't think so.

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Yes, obvious, we were given our ultimate democratic right 3 years ago...and used it.

As the consequences of Brexit, particularly a no deal Brexit, which Leave succeeded in hiding in 2016 have in the intervening years become more and more apparent to the general population. the democratic option must be to let us make the final decision. 

 

Especially as MPs are playing party political football with this vital issue, or even worse, using it for their own personal political advancement.

24 minutes ago, evadgib said:

'They didn't know what they were voting for' hasn't worked from day one and is frankly patronising from the side that believe they did.

More or less patronising than having vital facts hidden or dismissed without any evidence and even being lied to in order to convince people to vote Leave?

20 minutes ago, tebee said:

Indeed, but  because it didn't specify how we should leave we have now ended up with the current impasse.

 

Roughly 33% want to leave with no deal, 10% with may's deal and 12% preferring a softer brexit  - whille 44% would prefer to remain anyway.

 

This gives politicians seeking to deliver brexit a dilemma - do the satisfy the 33% wanting no deal and upset 67% of the population or go for some compromise and hope both side accept it. The hard brexiters insistence that nothing short of nodeal is the true brexit makes the later seem unlikely.

 

So to politicians brexit has become a poisoned chalice - delivering any one version will upset more people than it pleases. They don't want to do this as they want those people to vote for them next time.

 

This in a nutshell is why we have the current impasse         

 An impasse which can only be solved by giving the people the final choice as I outlined earlier.

 

Three options: accept the deal on offer, whatever it may be, or leave with no deal, or cancel the whole thing and remain.

 

Voters allowed to vote for their first and second preference. If no choice has 50% plus 1 of the votes then remove the option with the fewest votes and allocate the second choice on those papers accordingly.

 

 

39 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

Yes.

 

If it's too complicated for you, see if you can find someone to explain it to you in very simple words of one syllable.

'Ficker than us'...?

11 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

More or less patronising than having vital facts hidden or dismissed without any evidence and even being lied to in order to convince people to vote Leave?

You don't get it 49; Leavers didn't need to be conned into voting, most if not all had the capacity to make their decision regardless.

15 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

As the consequences of Brexit, particularly a no deal Brexit, which Leave succeeded in hiding in 2016 have in the intervening years become more and more apparent to the general population. the democratic option must be to let us make the final decision. 

 

Especially as MPs are playing party political football with this vital issue, or even worse, using it for their own personal political advancement.

What about the extremely well hidden consequences of joining in the first place in 1973, which were known to a very few deceitful people in power but were still largely very well hidden to most of the public, even by the 1975 referendum? If these hidden consequences had been fairly exposed in 1975 we would have been out then and there would be no debate now.

 

 

14 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 An impasse which can only be solved by giving the people the final choice as I outlined earlier.

 

Three options: accept the deal on offer, whatever it may be, or leave with no deal, or cancel the whole thing and remain.

 

Voters allowed to vote for their first and second preference. If no choice has 50% plus 1 of the votes then remove the option with the fewest votes and allocate the second choice on those papers accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Remind me why I should have to vote again, for something I successfully voted for 3 years ago, when I was told by the most senior politician that the outcome would be final - a once in a generation decision.

10 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Remind me why I should have to vote again, for something I successfully voted for 3 years ago, when I was told by the most senior politician that the outcome would be final - a once in a generation decision.

Who promptly resigned as he knew that it was "mission impossible" to secure an exit deal from the EU which would be anywhere near of benefit to the UK.

 

 

1 hour ago, bannork said:

Stop being obtuse, vintage warbler of Pichit. There was no mention of out with no trade deals.

Exactly......And we all knew that and VOTED to LEAVE......Blimey, some of you posting here cannot grasp that fact....Crazy....

30 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Who promptly resigned as he knew that it was "mission impossible" to secure an exit deal from the EU which would be anywhere near of benefit to the UK.

 

 

Think your crystal ball is clouding up again....

32 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Who promptly resigned as he knew that it was "mission impossible" to secure an exit deal from the EU which would be anywhere near of benefit to the UK.

Cameron lacked a plan b (unless it was to resign).

47 minutes ago, evadgib said:

You don't get it 49; Leavers didn't need to be conned into voting, most if not all had the capacity to make their decision regardless.

 

Then why, among other examples, did the Leave campaign spend over it's allowed limit of £7 million pound on it's campaign to persuade people to vote leave?

 

Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

 

Then why, among other examples, did the Leave campaign spend over it's allowed limit of £7 million pound on it's campaign to persuade people to vote leave?

 

Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission

I don't know anyone that recieved a penny to vote leave....

38 minutes ago, petemoss said:

Who promptly resigned as he knew that it was "mission impossible" to secure an exit deal from the EU which would be anywhere near of benefit to the UK.

And that is your biggest problem. You are looking at it from an EU's perspective. It has been done a thousand times but it seems some people just do not understand or will ever get it. How do the USA, Japan, China, Singapore, Australia,...... do outside the EU. They all do fine.

Why is the EU and the many posters on here continually telling us how we are committing suicide, we have made a mistake, we will not survive. You are embarrassing yourselves.

10 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

Then why, among other examples, did the Leave campaign spend over it's allowed limit of £7 million pound on it's campaign to persuade people to vote leave?

 

Brexit: Vote Leave broke electoral law, says Electoral Commission

And the remain campaign spent over £9 million pounds of tax payers money to convince the country to remain and still lost.

 

"Even if all that is alleged against Vote Leave is true, it is clear that this did not create an unfair playing field. Both sides in the Referendum exploited loopholes to maximise how much they could spend. The Remain side had the advantage of having the government machine – and £9.3 million of public funds on clear campaign literature – on its side. If the referendum was unbalanced, the advantage was with Remain – and yet it still lost."

 

https://capx.co/remain-not-leave-had-an-unfair-advantage-in-the-eu-referendum/

 

 

50 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What about the extremely well hidden consequences of joining in the first place in 1973, which were known to a very few deceitful people in power but were still largely very well hidden to most of the public, even by the 1975 referendum? If these hidden consequences had been fairly exposed in 1975 we would have been out then and there would be no debate now.

 

 

 

The consequences of staying or going were spelt out fully by both sides in 1975. 

 

There were many leaflets, posters, articles encouraging people to vote No, including the following which, along with a counter part for Yes, was delivered to every household in the UK.

 

 

 

Maybe, like you've admitted for 2016, you couldn't be bothered to pay attention?

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

And the remain campaign spent over £9 million pounds of tax payers money to convince the country to remain and still lost.

 

Point missed completly!

 

If, as evadawotsit claims, the majority had already made up their minds to vote leave did the leave campaign need to spend any money at all?

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Remind me why I should have to vote again, for something I successfully voted for 3 years ago, when I was told by the most senior politician that the outcome would be final - a once in a generation decision.

 

To solve the impasse created by self serving Brexiteer and party politic playing MPs and to take the decison away from those MPs and put it in the hands of the people.

 

What are you scared of? With two Brexit options and only one remain, if Brexit regardless of circumstances is as wholeheartedly supported here in the UK as you think it is, then the remain option will surely be eliminbated in the first round!