Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Once again, you confuse accepting the result with the democratic right to oppose it. 

 

See what the now leader of the Brexit Party had to say on the matter at the time of the referendum, he understood and articulated the idea perfectly. 

OK, you accept the vote , lets leave 

Just now, sanemax said:

OK, you accept the vote , lets leave 

For the reasons discussed at length, put this crock of Brexit back to the people. 

2 hours ago, sanemax said:

I cannot see any hypocrisy there .

Would be rather silly and unprecedented for a person who wins a referendum  , to call for a re run 

None the less he is a hypocrite. 

19 minutes ago, Basil B said:

Who's splitting the leave vote?

It is many of those who voted leave who are saying they did not vote for a no deal Brexit.

And how many of the 2016 silver medalists now want HMG to get on and deliver? 

7 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

None the less he is a hypocrite. 

He isnt , he didnt say that he wouldnt accept a close result if he won 

Just now, sanemax said:

He isnt , he didnt say that he wouldnt accept a close result if he won 

Therein lies his hypocrisy in saying a close defeat should lead to a rerun. If it was true for that it is true for the opposite. His refusal to accept this is hypocrisy. 

18 hours ago, nauseus said:

If you read all my posts, the answers to your questions can be found and are answered, as far as I am concerned. I don't have the time or the patience to go through all this again. Your basic aim, like most other remainers, if for a rerun of a referendum that is already decided, because you lost.

And that is their democratic right, as is the leavers right to campaign for what they believe. You really have trouble understanding what democracy is.  

 

For clarity, yet again, the government decides how to respond to the referendum vote, not leavers or remainers. So far, they're making a hash of it. No doubt, Johnson will finish it off by invoking a GE when parliament votes down his 'no deal' - as is parliament's and Johnson's democratic right to do so.

 

He also has the option of proroguing parliament to force through a no-deal, but constitutionally that would be the kiss of death for him - so his best choice is to trust Tory voters to vote the party back into power with an increased majority. Something that May failed to do, and IMO, the same failure would happen again.

Just now, Bluespunk said:

Therein lies his hypocrisy in saying a close defeat should lead to a rerun. If it was true for that it is true for the opposite. His refusal to accept this is hypocrisy. 

Well, he didnt actually say that there should be a re-run , he just said that it wouldnt be the end .

  He stated that it "wouldnt be the end" and the Remain group have proven him to be right 

Just now, sanemax said:

Well, he didnt actually say that there should be a re-run , he just said that it wouldnt be the end .

  He stated that it "wouldnt be the end" and the Remain group have proven him to be right 

And he should accept and support  the remain position as it is the same one he espoused. 

 

To not do so is hypocritical. 

9 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Others want the type of referendum I have suggested many times here.

 

Three options:

Leave with the deal,

Leave with no deal,

Remain.

 

Voters mark their first and second preferences. If no first preference has 50% of the votes plus 1 then the first preference with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choice on those papers is allocated as appropriate to decide the winner.

 

Which part of that do you not understand?

 

I agree with your referendum idea, but it could be argued that it is splitting the leave vote to an extent. It is about the significance of the second vote. Many leavers who did not want the (Terminal madness of a) no deal option, could still have that as a 2nd choice, and many could have remain as a second choice, whereas remainers would probably have leave with a deal as 2nd choice. The ramifications of this are not obvious to me I admit, but I see potential problems. 

 

How about question 1, leave or remain,

question 2, if the majority choice was to leave,  would you chose leave with a deal or no deal.

My apologies for missing and so not responding to the following before.

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

The WA is BRINO, even without considering the implications of the Irish backstop

 The Irish border question and it's implications on the Good Friday Agreement was raised by the Remain side during the referendum campaign, and dismissed by Leave as part of 'Project Fear.' this was because they had no answer to it so tried to hide the problem from the British public. Unfortunately, as with many other problems associated with Brexit, they succeeded in this deception.

 

The backstop is designed to be a temporary measure to satisfy all parties until a practical solution based upon technology can be found. I am, of course, well aware that there can be nothing as permanent as a temporary measure!

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

and it could keep the UK under ECJ/EU jurisdiction indefinitely.

Speculation, as you show by using the word 'could.'

 

In fact, under the agreement had we left as scheduled last March we would have remained subject to existing ECJ rulings and agreed upon existing EU regulations until December 2020 at the latest. 

 

We would not have been subject to any ECJ rulings or EU regulations made after 29th March 2019.

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

The WA also commits the UK to the EU future defence plans.

 

Where does it say that?

 

Of course, we would still be committed to much common defence planning due to our membership of NATO. Are you suggesting we leave NATO?

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

It does not give back exclusive fishing to us.

As said by others, it cannot give back exclusive fishing rights to us because those rights are not in the purview of the EU, but of the UK government!

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

The PD is linked to the WA in parts and these parts may legally force the UK to accept a customs union but not an FTA in any form of that that exists today. 

More speculation, as indicated by your use of the word 'may.'

 

Yes, the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement are inexorably linked; and will be under any agreement negotiated by Boris.

 

But I have not seen in either anything which would force the UK to accept a customs union. In fact the final sentence of para 4 of the political declaration says the exact opposite!

Quote

It must also ensure the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the protection of its internal market, while respecting the result of the 2016 referendum including with regard to the development of its independent trade policy.

 Tell us, how can the EU legally force us to accept a customs union whilst at the same time respect the protection of our internal market and the development of our independent trade policy?

 

You Brexiteers are very fond of accusing Remainers of resorting to 'Project Fear,' but use such tactics more often yourselves!

 

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2019 at 5:16 AM, nauseus said:

Overall, the WA is bad for the UK and I see it as the UK government's responsibility to reject it and try for an alternative. Article 50 actually puts the onus on the EU to 'negotiate and conclude an agreement' but it seems they need to put in a bit more work on that. If the EU were to open up for sensible negotiations, then I would say that would be worth another extension.

 

Yes, the agreement, any agreement, will be worse for the UK than remaining in the EU; but is infinitely better than the disaster of a no deal Brexit.

 

The EU have negotiated, have come to an agreement with the British government. It was not either party who stopped it from going ahead; it was Rees-Mogg and his ERG who put the personal ambition of their favoured candidate for PM ahead of what was good for the country.

 

Boris claims he is able to 'renegotiate' a new deal; but to all intents and purposes it will inevitably be identical to the one already on the table. Of course, having achieved their aim Rees-Mogg and the other Tories who voted against the deal because it was May's deal will this time vote for it because it is Boris's deal.

3 hours ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I agree with your referendum idea, but it could be argued that it is splitting the leave vote to an extent. It is about the significance of the second vote. Many leavers who did not want the (Terminal madness of a) no deal option, could still have that as a 2nd choice, and many could have remain as a second choice, whereas remainers would probably have leave with a deal as 2nd choice. The ramifications of this are not obvious to me I admit, but I see potential problems. 

 

How about question 1, leave or remain,

question 2, if the majority choice was to leave,  would you chose leave with a deal or no deal.

 I would argue that it would not split the leave vote as leave with no deal would, I believe, come last in the first round and those who put that as their first choice are unlikely to put remain as their second.

 

Though I agree that many who wish us to leave with a deal would prefer us to remain rather than leave with no deal.

 

Just as many who wish us to remain would prefer us to leave with a deal rather than leave with no deal; I know I would.

 

So I think that your method or mine would produce the same result; either leave with a deal or remain.

5 hours ago, evadgib said:

I'll keep this short (????) ;

 

- Splitting the Leave vote exactly as explained.

 

- PUT UP OR SHUT UP-THERE HAS BEEN NO 'DEMAND OR DENIAL' (other than your own)!

 

- Legislation currently allows voters to participate up to 15 years after they have left the UK regardless of geographic location; furthermore a motion to restore VOTES FOR LIFE has reached the HoL and is expected to pass into law during the life of this Govt.

 

Which part of any o'that do you not understand?

 Oh dear, struck a nerve there, didn't I?

 

For more explanation of how the referendum would work and how your attempt to twist my words is merely a figment of your own imagination; see the Nigel Garvie's and my posts above.

 

BTW, I have never said that expats should not be allowed to vote.

 

Neither have I ever said that you are not entitled to hold and express your opinions on this or any other UK matter.

 

What I have said, and will never deny, is that those of us who actually live in the UK and have already seen some of the effects of Brexit at first hand, who see all the media reports, Remain, Brexit and neutral, rather than just those you select for copying or reporting here because they confirm your views, have a clearer understanding of those effects than those of you who live 6000 miles away.

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

 Oh dear, struck a nerve there, didn't I?

 

For more explanation of how the referendum would work and how your attempt to twist my words is merely a figment of your own imagination; see the Nigel Garvie's and my posts above.

 

BTW, I have never said that expats should not be allowed to vote.

 

Neither have I ever said that you are not entitled to hold and express your opinions on this or any other UK matter.

 

What I have said, and will never deny, is that those of us who actually live in the UK and have already seen some of the effects of Brexit at first hand, who see all the media reports, Remain, Brexit and neutral, rather than just those you select for copying or reporting here because they confirm your views, have a clearer understanding of those effects than those of you who live 6000 miles away.

Enjoy your 0705hrs Woking to Waterloo in the morning 49 ????

 

7 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

For the reasons discussed at length, put this crock of Brexit back to the people. 

POWER TO THE  PEOPLE

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 Oh dear, struck a nerve there, didn't I?

 

For more explanation of how the referendum would work and how your attempt to twist my words is merely a figment of your own imagination; see the Nigel Garvie's and my posts above.

 

BTW, I have never said that expats should not be allowed to vote.

 

Neither have I ever said that you are not entitled to hold and express your opinions on this or any other UK matter.

 

What I have said, and will never deny, is that those of us who actually live in the UK and have already seen some of the effects of Brexit at first hand, who see all the media reports, Remain, Brexit and neutral, rather than just those you select for copying or reporting here because they confirm your views, have a clearer understanding of those effects than those of you who live 6000 miles away.

your last paragraph said it all,seems you,ve got 3 camps in this debate,those copping out of brexit i.e landlords,employers in the gig economy,etc etc,and those getting shafted thru brexit,taxpayers[whose taxes subsidise the "gig economies" like uber,] and those people dependant on the state for housing,people who have to use the nhs,people who have to work for a living. and the 3rd camp of people living abroad,who have no idea what life in britain is all about.