Majority of Britons say any Brexit deal should be put to referendum - poll

[Krataiboy]

1 hour ago, Estrada said:

Excuse me if I don't shout on TV. How is it the "Will of The People" when 63% of the population did not vote for BREXIT. Secondly, Lord Rose of Monewdan is still a remainer and he is leaving it up to Parliament to make the right decision to stop the 3 years and probably another 3 years of severe damage to the UK economy. Lord Rose is in the house of Lords and hardly ever turns up. It is up to the House of Commons to make the right decision for the benefit of the Country and not my friend Lord Bamford of JCB who gave the Conservatives GBP635,000 to fund their BREXIT campaign and a tidy sum to finance Boris. All this to benefit J.C.B. and Tony Bamford and his mates who don't want the EU getting too close to their offshore finances.

Stop picking - it'll never heal.

[dick dasterdly]

8 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But we had a previous referendum to stay in.

 

The usual Brexit nonsense that because they won by a small margin it must never ever be challenged. Seems they're all <deleted>-scared of democracy really. No one must ever change their mind; and we must pretend that referendums aren't just advisory!

 

Any future referendum must include:

1. Leaving with no deal.

2. Leaving with the deal currently on the table, whatever that is at the time.

3. Remaining with the current UK membership deal.

 

Intelligent people can then reason between the 3 to decide the one that's best for the UK's future while Brexiters can cry in their beer because they didn't get their own way.

"The usual Brexit nonsense that because they won by a small margin it must never ever be challenged. Seems they're all <deleted>-scared of democracy really. No one must ever change their mind; and we must pretend that referendums aren't just advisory!"

 

I'm very sorry to see that you're misrepresenting me in this way .

 

I've posted otherwise (apart from the bit about 'only advisory') time and time again....

 

 Edit - "But we had a previous referendum to stay in."

 

Very true - and how many years did it take to get another referendum on this issue?

[Krataiboy]

6 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

But we had a previous referendum to stay in.

 

The usual Brexit nonsense that because they won by a small margin it must never ever be challenged. Seems they're all <deleted>-scared of democracy really. No one must ever change their mind; and we must pretend that referendums aren't just advisory!

 

Any future referendum must include:

1. Leaving with no deal.

2. Leaving with the deal currently on the table, whatever that is at the time.

3. Remaining with the current UK membership deal.

 

Intelligent people can then reason between the 3 to decide the one that's best for the UK's future while Brexiters can cry in their beer because they didn't get their own way.

Cheers! Now be a good lad and stop crying, have another swig of your beer and accept the reality that you lost.

 

Or are you not "intelligent" enough to work out that 52 is a higher number than 48?

[Rookiescot]

20 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

But the government promised last referendum would be binding! Let's get that one out of the way first, eh?

That was Camerons government. Subsequent governments are not bound by the policies of previous governments. 

[Krataiboy]

7 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

That was Camerons government. Subsequent governments are not bound by the policies of previous governments. 

But Theresa said she was. So does Boris. Not calling them liars, I trust.

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, Krataiboy said:

But Theresa said she was. So does Boris. Not calling them liars, I trust.

Parliament at the time of passing the Referendum stated it was advisory only

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Parliament at the time of passing the Referendum stated it was advisory only

Does "Parliament will implement what you decide" jog your memory?

[cleopatra2]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

Does "Parliament will implement what you decide" jog your memory?

Explain

The referendum was advisory in law

Politically is a different matter

[Nigel Garvie]

10 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

 

Or are you not "intelligent" enough to work out that 52 is a higher number than 48?

OK some TV posters may be fairly challenged in the grey matter department, and some are not shy about displaying this. However everyone knows that 52 is higher than 48, so what you said appears to be remarkably unintelligent. The point is, so what? That was 3 years ago things have changed, that's what happens in the world, things change, you may well not even get your precious Brexit, live with it.

 

Was the referendum advisory or binding. Take it from a high court Judge, when Leave UK were being charged with a vast overspend he said that, had the Referendum been binding, it would have been deemed illegal because one side broke the spending limit law. However since it was advisory and non binding, the result could not be cancelled.

 

The choice is dead simple.

The result was illegal they broke the spending limit law.

The result was advisory.

 

 

[natway09]

The policy makers don't even know what is best for the country

How the h..l are the people supposed to know ?

If someone in command (& it won't be Boris) does not make some decisions soon & can ensure they are carried out (very difficult with everything needed to be approved by the chicken farm)

the UK will drift on a downward spiral for perhaps 10 years

[dick dasterdly]

3 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

OK some TV posters may be fairly challenged in the grey matter department, and some are not shy about displaying this. However everyone knows that 52 is higher than 48, so what you said appears to be remarkably unintelligent. The point is, so what? That was 3 years ago things have changed, that's what happens in the world, things change, you may well not even get your precious Brexit, live with it.

 

Was the referendum advisory or binding. Take it from a high court Judge, when Leave UK were being charged with a vast overspend he said that, had the Referendum been binding, it would have been deemed illegal because one side broke the spending limit law. However since it was advisory and non binding, the result could not be cancelled.

 

The choice is dead simple.

The result was illegal they broke the spending limit law.

The result was advisory.

 

 

And I'm sure you agree that the govt. spending a small fortune sending a pamphlet to all households advocating remain (whilst also stating that the referendum result would be respected) should not be included as part of the money spent by the remain camp?

 

"OK some TV posters may be fairly challenged in the grey matter department, and some are not shy about displaying this."

 

And thank you for yet another remain poster basing their post on insults against those with a different opinion....

[Rookiescot]

14 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

But Theresa said she was. So does Boris. Not calling them liars, I trust.

They are politicians.

Alistair Carmichael is a good example of what politicians are like. Was taken to court because of his lying. Judge decided that yes he had lied but it was a political lie not a real one.

Up till then most of us had thought a lie was a lie but it seems not. 

[vogie]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

Explain

The referendum was advisory in law

Politically is a different matter

This has been done to death.

Who is saying it wasn't advisory in law.

Parliament asked the people who was eligible to vote for advice.

The people who were eligible to vote, voted by a large majority to leave the EU.

On Parliament receiving and listening to the people who were eligible to vote, decided to act on their advice and take our country out of the EU.

MPs that decided to leave the EU on the advice of the people that were eligible to vote won by a majority of 384.

So just to finalise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[ThaiBunny]

1 minute ago, Rookiescot said:

They are politicians. Alistair Carmichael is a good example of what politicians are like. Was taken to court because of his lying. Judge decided that yes he had lied but it was a political lie not a real one. Up till then most of us had thought a lie was a lie but it seems not.

The ghastly Australian prime minister John Howard once brazenly asserted that in election campaigns there are "core" and "non-core" promises - except you don't get to know which is which until afterwards

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, <deleted> dasterdly said:

And I'm sure you agree that the govt. spending a small fortune sending a pamphlet to all households advocating remain (whilst also stating that the referendum result would be respected) should not be included as part of the money spent by the remain camp?

 

"OK some TV posters may be fairly challenged in the grey matter department, and some are not shy about displaying this."

 

And thank you for yet another remain poster basing their post on insults against those with a different opinion....

The leaflet was sent outside the official campaign period . Thus not included in the 7m budget requirements

[St George]

38 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

That was Camerons government. Subsequent governments are not bound by the policies of previous governments. 

 

 

Hmmm, Scottish rules of democracy.

[cleopatra2]

8 minutes ago, vogie said:

This has been done to death.

Who is saying it wasn't advisory in law.

Parliament asked the people who was eligible to vote for advice.

The people who were eligible to vote, voted by a large majority to leave the EU.

On Parliament receiving and listening to the people who were eligible to vote, decided to act on their advice and take our country out of the EU.

MPs that decided to leave the EU on the advice of the people that were eligible to vote won by a majority of 384.

So just to finalise, you don't have a leg to stand on.

 

Taking in consideration that it was Parliaments decision to enact the referendum result. It is left to Parliament to decide how to proceed next.

Whether that be leaving with a deal , no deal or another referendum

[vogie]

Just now, cleopatra2 said:

Taking in consideration that it was Parliaments decision to enact the referendum result. It is left to Parliament to decide how to proceed next.

Whether that be leaving with a deal , no deal or another referendum

Brexit is not all about you, there are a majority of 17.4 million voters to take into consideration.

[St George]

28 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Parliament at the time of passing the Referendum stated it was advisory only

 

 

Excellent, so you will have a link to support that statement, or was it something you dreamed up.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, St George said:

 

 

Excellent, so you will have a link to support that statement, or was it something you dreamed up.

See Hansard

D Liddington response to the amendment put forward by A Salmond

[ThaiBunny]

6 minutes ago, St George said:

Excellent, so you will have a link to support that statement, or was it something you dreamed up.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee explained in a 2010 report why that’s the case. It said “because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory”. https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/the-culture-secretary-said-the-eu-referendum-was-binding-it-wasnt

[Krataiboy]

35 minutes ago, Nigel Garvie said:

OK some TV posters may be fairly challenged in the grey matter department, and some are not shy about displaying this. However everyone knows that 52 is higher than 48, so what you said appears to be remarkably unintelligent. The point is, so what? That was 3 years ago things have changed, that's what happens in the world, things change, you may well not even get your precious Brexit, live with it.

 

Was the referendum advisory or binding. Take it from a high court Judge, when Leave UK were being charged with a vast overspend he said that, had the Referendum been binding, it would have been deemed illegal because one side broke the spending limit law. However since it was advisory and non binding, the result could not be cancelled.

 

The choice is dead simple.

The result was illegal they broke the spending limit law.

The result was advisory.

 

 

Have another beer on me - and I'll happily throw in a box of tissues if that'll cheer you up!

 

[cleopatra2]

17 minutes ago, St George said:

 

 

Excellent, so you will have a link to support that statement, or was it something you dreamed up.

http://bit.ly/2NnLbo3

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Have another beer on me - and I'll happily throw in a box of tissues if that'll cheer you up!

 

Tears of soy mate. No need for tissues. Save them for yourself when the result of the confirmatory vote comes in.

[St George]

5 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Have another beer on me - and I'll happily throw in a box of tissues if that'll cheer you up!

 

 

 

It matters not Cameron, as head of the government, committed to implementing the result.

 

[dunroaming]

22 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

LONDON (Reuters) - Just over half of Britons back any final Brexit deal or agreement being put to a referendum, a poll showed on Wednesday with just over two months until Britain is due to leave the European Union.

Nobody asked me or anyone I know.  Another referendum would be a dumb idea as it just raises the temperature further.  A general election is what is needed to get rid of this pathetic government.  A referendum wouldn't do that.

[St George]

1 minute ago, cleopatra2 said:

http://bit.ly/2NnLbo3

 

 

Thank you.

[cleopatra2]

1 minute ago, St George said:

 

 

It matters not Cameron, as head of the government, committed to implementing the result.

 

Cameron did not have the authority to make it binding.

Statements by MPs do not automatically become law

[DannyCarlton]

23 minutes ago, vogie said:

Brexit is not all about you, there are a majority of 17.4 million voters to take into consideration.

And it's not all about you. there's a minority of 16.1 million voters to be taken into consideration, whish I am confident will be a substantia majority after the confirmatory vote.

[DannyCarlton]

4 minutes ago, St George said:

 

 

It matters not Cameron, as head of the government, committed to implementing the result.

 

Did he do it? No, he jacked a few days later because he knew it was impossible. All bets off.