Would you Vote ❎ differently now in the European Union Referendum

[Francis Albert]

11 hours ago, shaun.lawson said:

 

If you've read it, and are still asking that question, you clearly don't understand either the article or the spirit of the GFA - let alone the context of The Troubles. 

I read it when it was first published. I have read many similar articles over the last few years. I didn't need the resources of the Lawssier *(is that what it was called?). I understand that the absence of a border is important in preserving the delicate balance of peace (ie to put it bluntly to dissuade people who have never been entirely happy with peace from resuming knee-capping members of their own communities).

All of that doesn't alter the fact that the repeated claim that a border would breach the Good Friday Agreement is a lie. I don't know why that lie is clung to so strongly, since the arguments for avoiding the border are strong enough without the lie.

Other lies seem to  be less acceptable. The big red bus makes daily appearances but in some ways is less of a lie. The number was exaggerated but there is an  underlying  truth - that we are large net contributors to the EU and leaving would give us a choice of how to spend that money. The claim that the a border would breach the terms (terms not spirit) is a straightforward lie.

[Francis Albert]

2 hours ago, Cade said:

Yet again FA tries to claim that the GFA and the Irish Border issue don't exist.

 

 

It's been spelled out several times, so here I go again:

The GFA enshrines in law that NI and Irish citizens MUST have the same rights.

This includes the right of freedom of movement.

Any kind of border control violates that.

 

 

There is so much wrong in there starting with the first line.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Francis Albert

[AlimOzturk]

I think this poll pretty much represents the Scottish feeling towards brexit. It will lead to the break up of the UK.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

26 minutes ago, AlimOzturk said:

I think this poll pretty much represents the Scottish feeling towards brexit. It will lead to the break up of the UK.

 

Yeah, it really does. Whether that pushes independence closer I’ve no idea because the issues involved aren’t identical but you’ve got to wonder.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

18 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

You’re spot on, there will be remainers demanding another Brexit vote because they didn’t know all the facts, yet also turn around and say there shouldn’t be another Indyref, because the vote returned a No, yet they didn’t know all the facts concerning that vote. 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn’t you agree though that the burden of proof/evidence (for want of a better phrase) has to be on the side of those proposing massive change? Those who voted No/Remain weren’t asking for anything - they were simply backing the status quo. Yes/leave were seismic changes and for that reason, their campaigns should be judged by a higher standard.

[luckyBatistuta]

1 hour ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Wouldn’t you agree though that the burden of proof/evidence (for want of a better phrase) has to be on the side of those proposing massive change? Those who voted No/Remain weren’t asking for anything - they were simply backing the status quo. Yes/leave were seismic changes and for that reason, their campaigns should be judged by a higher standard.

 

Wouldn’t disagree with that as such, but there are always lies on both sides leading up to every vote. We all try and sift through all the bullshit and make our own judgement on what is best for ourselves and the country going forward and then vote. After that has happened, people should be prepared to accept the outcome, as long as it wasn’t rigged. We are now living in a society where people just aren’t prepared to accept anything that doesn’t suit them. It happened in the Indyref, it happened in the Brexit and will happen again if there is another vote...and on and on. Sick to the back teeth of it all to tell the truth.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

1 minute ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

Wouldn’t disagree with that as such, but there are always lies on both sides leading up to every vote. We all try and sift through all the bullshit and make our own judgement on what is best for ourselves and the country going forward and then vote. After that has happened, people should be prepared to accept the outcome, as long as it wasn’t rigged. We are now living in a society where people just aren’t prepared to accept anything that doesn’t suit them. It happened in the Indyref, it happened in the Brexit and will happen again if there is another vote...and on and on. Sick to the back teeth of it all to tell the truth.

 

Agree with a lot of this. It’s a fact - probably as a result of social media - that people now feel entitled to have everything their own way, no matter the reality or the need for compromise. Society is proper selfish in that respect.

 

You see the same with issues like housing/tax - everyone agrees that we need loads more housing but try to build on land near a village in North Yorkshire and everyone from that village will fight to prevent it from happening. Everyone agrees that more money needs to be spent on public services but no-one wants to pay extra for it. The country is paralysed by self interest.

[Mollo]

I don't really get the fury at the idea of another vote

 

Surely in a democracy - even if you have 100 votes, you always end up with 'the will of the people'

 

Okay - so it could go on forever and in that sense it's a mockery - but it isn't a mockery of democracy itself

 

I'd argue that in a true democratic society - the people would be approached for a vote in the face of an unprecedented situation that was having an adverse affect on the running of the place..?

 

I'm saying this only because I know 1 or 2 people in who the seethe at this very idea has turned them from not caring about Brexit to the most passionate of defenders of the vote 

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

17 minutes ago, Mollo said:

I don't really get the fury at the idea of another vote

 

Surely in a democracy - even if you have 100 votes, you always end up with 'the will of the people'

 

Okay - so it could go on forever and in that sense it's a mockery - but it isn't a mockery of democracy itself

 

I'd argue that in a true democratic society - the people would be approached for a vote in the face of an unprecedented situation that was having an adverse affect on the running of the place..?

 

I'm saying this only because I know 1 or 2 people in who the seethe at this very idea has turned them from not caring about Brexit to the most passionate of defenders of the vote 

 

I think the problem comes with the levels of privilege on both sides. You’ve got Rees-Mogg and his crew on one side saying we should just leave and have done. You’ve got Gina Miller and her lot on the other saying the whole thing should be cancelled. What do any of these people really know about why people voted or the things that drove people to vote the way they did, and what are they proposing to help change those issues?

 

The answer is nothing, or very little.

[Governor Tarkin]

2 hours ago, luckyBatistuta said:

We are now living in a society where people just aren’t prepared to accept anything that doesn’t suit them. It happened in the Indyref, it happened in the Brexit and will happen again if there is another vote...and on and on. Sick to the back teeth of it all to tell the truth.

 

This is why we need a Franco/Mussolini type strongman at the reins to get shit done.

[Francis Albert]

9 hours ago, Cade said:

Yet again FA tries to claim that the GFA and the Irish Border issue don't exist.

 

 

It's been spelled out several times, so here I go again:

The GFA enshrines in law that NI and Irish citizens MUST have the same rights.

This includes the right of freedom of movement.

Any kind of border control violates that.

 

 

As an earlier post indicated I was going to let this go because of its sheer stupidity. But then I think people who post silly ROFL emoticons to put down another poster should at least know something about what they are talking  about. And that an alarming number of otherwise seemingly intelligent people (that's you Shaun among others) seem to swallow whole the lie that a border in Ireland would breach the Good Friday Agreement.

The first line is a straw man - I have never claimed that the GFA and the Irish border issue don't exist.

Far from enshrining in law that NI and Irish citizens MUST have the same rights the GFA does not use the words "NI citizens" for the good reason that in law NI citizens do not exist. It provides that people in NI can choose to be Irish or British citizens or both and whatever they choose they will have the same rights in NI as everyone else. Of course people in NI do not have the same rights as Irish citizens who live in the Republic of Ireland which is an independent state creating and enforcing as does the UK its own laws.

"Freedom of movement" is not mentioned in the GFA. I felt obliged to read the thing for a third time  before saying this, and it has got to the stage I would almost welcome being corrected. Perhaps everyone is reading a different Good Friday Agreement than the one I am reading.

Since I have said that preserving as invisible a border as possible is important for the preservation of peace in Ireland maybe some might say why the **** are you banging on about a technicality.

But the lie that Britain is contemplating breaching or intending to breach or will breach the GFA is a very dangerous one. Although the vast majority in NI and Ireland see the GFA as a peace settlement to be preserved at almost any cost there are those on both sides of the Republican/Unionist divide who see the GFA not as a peace settlement but as an act of surrender. And they are still armed, because disarmament is one aspect of the peace process that didn't happen. On the Republican side (as indeed on the other side) these factions do not have what they need to mount another campaign --- enough supporters to provide safe houses and to intimidate anyone who might cooperate with the authorities. It doesn't take huge numbers to do that but it needs a level of support within the community that the gunmen and bombers don't have, thanks largely to the GFA. The lie that Britain is about to or will breach the GFA by introducing even the most non-intrusive border controls is potentially a great recruiting tool for those who believe the GFA is an act of surrender. "If the British are willing to walk all over the terms of the GFA, it shows they can't keep their word, so why should we?"

That is why I think it is a lie that needs to be called out.

But I still have a slight nagging doubt that someone sometime might correct me on what GFA actually says. No-one has even tried to do so as yet.

Edited March 25, 2019 by Francis Albert

[Mollo]

3 hours ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

I think the problem comes with the levels of privilege on both sides. You’ve got Rees-Mogg and his crew on one side saying we should just leave and have done. You’ve got Gina Miller and her lot on the other saying the whole thing should be cancelled. What do any of these people really know about why people voted or the things that drove people to vote the way they did, and what are they proposing to help change those issues?

 

The answer is nothing, or very little.

Absolutely. I agree. 

 

Another vote in the same vein (little explained correctly or properly reaching the majority of people) would be just as bad. But another vote now more realism has come to the surface on what IN and OUT actually comprise of wouldn’t be the madness some seem to suggest. 

[Martin_T]

10 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

 

Respect for those opinions.

 

A People's Vote now on Brexit would kill it because the electorate would never accept TM's deal, and I suspect similar for Independence if the deal hit joe public in the pocket.

 

I suspect a second referendum would also result in a leave vote, because the issues of deprivation and deindustrialisation in the north of England in particular, still haven't been addressed, and the perception still exists, rightly or wrongly, that the establishment is the EU.

 

All that said, I think a second referendum is still desirable. The first was a non legally binding advisory vote in which the majority indicated that they wanted to leave, but the how and why of 'leave' was never adequately addressed, indeed neither of the leave campaigns mentioned anything about WTO and no deal, both of which are relatively recent constructs. Both 'no deal' and a Norway plus type deal, can be spun as satisfying the first referendum question of leaving the EU.

 

I think it needs to be taken into consideration how close the vote was, a 1% swing changes the outcome, which again strengths the arguments for both a double lock by way of a second referendum and further that a compromise middle ground solution is desirable, which is what May has cack handedly tried to deliver.

 

If we could write it into our non existent constitution that referendums were illegal then I'd be all for it. The disruption and uncertainty caused by them are ludicrous. However to tidy up the Brexit mess I think it makes sense to go again one more time.

 

Edited March 25, 2019 by Martin_T

[Bridge of Djoum]

On 24/03/2019 at 15:20, shaun.lawson said:

 

I'd suggest it's people who actually applaud a post which says, in not so many words, "they, a union of 27 countries, and the largest single market in the world, need us, a small island in the North Atlantic which voted to impoverish ourselves and have embarrassed ourselves on the world stage for 3 years, more than we need them" who have zero self-awareness, old chum. 

 

And do tell me about my arrogance when you go around calling Scottish independence supporters, "the most crashing bores on the planet". 

 

 

This. Well said. It's still going on on this thread too. Evidence, if ever it was needed, that we get the politicians we deserve.

I think I said ''crushing''

 

Crashing also works.

 

Calling people bores is in no way arrogant. You popping up everywhere with your self-important, condescending, never back down, pseudo intellectual, flip-flopping shite is both arrogant and crashingly boring. 

[JamboX2]

On 24/03/2019 at 14:00, The Comedian said:

 

Good post but can I question something. Why should remain be on any ballot paper? 

 

Remaining in the EU was comprehensively beaten in the 2016 referendum. You can argue that what kind of leave we were voting for wasn't clear but you cannot say the same about remain.

 

Everyone from the gutter to the boardroom knew to stay in the EU and carry on as we have been all you had to do was vote remain. A majority did not.

 

Now unless the leave voter's were also too stupid to know what they were voting for, I think it's fair to say a very simple, clearly defined and expensively campaigned for choice was not taken. The goal was empty, ball rolling along the line and the Remain team booted the ball high into the stand.

 

It's a question of how we leave now, if anything. Remain has been rejected and should be accepted as such.

 

It should be on the ballot paper because Parliament wont countenance No Deal. Rightly so. The two real options open to the UK are:

 

- Remain - revoke article 50

- Leave - May's withdrawal agreement 

 

Those are the two substantive options. No deal is like playing Russian roulette with a fully loaded pistol.

 

Frankly I do not understand why Brexiteers have utterly ****ed themselves over this as willingly as they have. The Deal was and is Transitional. In the following 2 years the government would have negotiated a Free Trade Deal outside EFTA/EEA. Exactly what they wanted. I think it's a sign Brexiteer MPs are frankly stupid. They are playing into remainers hands by sabotaging the only PM who'd give them what they want (and she would because she's dodgy about immigration!).

 

We'll now either not Leave or end up amending the Political Declaration to be in the EEA. Exactly what they don't want now. But is what they said they'd be happy with in the referendum... go figure. It's an absolute mess.

[Marvin]

18 hours ago, AlimOzturk said:

I think this poll pretty much represents the Scottish feeling towards brexit. It will lead to the break up of the UK.

 

Isn't that what the pro-independence supporters want though?

[Governor Tarkin]

On 24/03/2019 at 19:20, shaun.lawson said:

 Evidence, if ever it was needed, that we get the politicians we deserve.

 

Where?

The UK or Uruguay?

 

On 24/03/2019 at 20:20, shaun.lawson said:

Stop thinking about money, and start thinking about people.

 

 

This kind of wishy-washy, sentimental guff is for middle-class students who make their own hemp clothes, and simpletons.

[Cade]

2 hours ago, Marvin said:

 

Isn't that what the pro-independence supporters want though?

Not really no.

It should not take the complete financial ruin of the UK for Scotland to regain independence.

After all, we would still trade heavily with England afterwards and who wants to trade with a bankrupt state?

[luckyBatistuta]

On 25/03/2019 at 16:14, Governor Tarkin said:

 

This is why we need a Franco/Mussolini type strongman at the reins to get shit done.

 

This made me laugh, first person that popped in to my head was Corbyn 

[Haken]

The line that goes something like 'I don't want a second referendum because it's undemocratic' is a bit of an odd one for me.  I see the whole thing as a bit of a trial which ended with the jury making its decision on the basis of the information it was given.   Since then, new and more detailed information has come to light and there is at least a concern that the jury may have taken a decision not having been fully aware of all the facts, or appreciative of the true extent of ramifications.  It may be that the jury, if asked to reconsider, will reach the same conclusion, but at least it will have done so from a more informed position.

  

[Howdy Doody Jambo]

55 minutes ago, Haken said:

The line that goes something like 'I don't want a second referendum because it's undemocratic' is a bit of an odd one for me.  I see the whole thing as a bit of a trial which ended with the jury making its decision on the basis of the information it was given.   Since then, new and more detailed information has come to light and there is at least a concern that the jury may have taken a decision not having been fully aware of all the facts, or appreciative of the true extent of ramifications.  It may be that the jury, if asked to reconsider, will reach the same conclusion, but at least it will have done so from a more informed position.

  

Going by this poll 90% would vote the same 

[i8hibsh]

1 hour ago, Haken said:

The line that goes something like 'I don't want a second referendum because it's undemocratic' is a bit of an odd one for me.  I see the whole thing as a bit of a trial which ended with the jury making its decision on the basis of the information it was given.   Since then, new and more detailed information has come to light and there is at least a concern that the jury may have taken a decision not having been fully aware of all the facts, or appreciative of the true extent of ramifications.  It may be that the jury, if asked to reconsider, will reach the same conclusion, but at least it will have done so from a more informed position.

  

 

 

What information were we given? What promises?

 

Where was this caveat on the ballot paper? I missed that.

 

It was a vote for adults not impressionable children ffs.  Although, the way the remainers have acted post result you would think otherwise.

 

 

Are we supposed to have a general election after everytime the democratically elected PM does something someone isn't happy with?

Edited March 27, 2019 by i8hibsh

[luckyBatistuta]

6 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

What information were we given? What promises?

 

Where was this caveat on the ballot paper? I missed that.

 

It was a vote for adults not impressionable children ffs.  Although, the way the remainers have acted post result you would think otherwise.

 

 

Are we supposed to have a general election after everytime the democratically elected PM does something someone isn't happy with?

 

I expect demonstrations the day after every General Election from now on, with protesters saying they were lied to and didn’t know all the facts.

[Boris]

31 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

What information were we given? What promises?

 

Where was this caveat on the ballot paper? I missed that.

 

It was a vote for adults not impressionable children ffs.  Although, the way the remainers have acted post result you would think otherwise.

 

 

Are we supposed to have a general election after everytime the democratically elected PM does something someone isn't happy with?

 

May's "red lines" weren't on the ballot paper at the EU referendum.

 

Leaving the EU could mean so many things, but we ended up with May's deal.  The minority PM, btw.

 

So given the magnitude of this event, and given the point that we know more now than we did at the time of the referendum, wouldn't a second vote make sense?

 

If the mood is against Brexit now, then surely a democratic deficit to not canvas the people again?  If the mood is still for Brexit then we can have no complaints.

 

This whole shambles is, imo, less about Brexit per se, but factionalism within the Tory party and them trying to manage it!

 

It's the biggest con since the Hatton Garden job!

[i8hibsh]

16 minutes ago, Boris said:

 

May's "red lines" weren't on the ballot paper at the EU referendum.

 

Leaving the EU could mean so many things, but we ended up with May's deal.  The minority PM, btw.

 

So given the magnitude of this event, and given the point that we know more now than we did at the time of the referendum, wouldn't a second vote make sense?

 

If the mood is against Brexit now, then surely a democratic deficit to not canvas the people again?  If the mood is still for Brexit then we can have no complaints.

 

This whole shambles is, imo, less about Brexit per se, but factionalism within the Tory party and them trying to manage it!

 

It's the biggest con since the Hatton Garden job!

 

And a third and a fourth?

 

Democracy does not work like that.  You seem to want to undermine the will of the people.  

 

Did you think after the vote it would be a seamless divorce?  Did you not foresee roadblocks?  Are you saying people are honestly that ****ing stupid?

 

Of course it was going to be a tough job ahead with lots of big bad decisions being made that would be unpopular.  Oh but no, now I want to call injustice.

 

I really with these protestors would STFU and do one.  You had your vote, I had mine – deal with it.

[Haken]

1 hour ago, Old Castle Rock said:

Going by this poll 90% would vote the same 

Hence my last sentence.

[Haken]

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

What information were we given? What promises?

 

Where was this caveat on the ballot paper? I missed that.

 

It was a vote for adults not impressionable children ffs.  Although, the way the remainers have acted post result you would think otherwise.

 

 

Are we supposed to have a general election after everytime the democratically elected PM does something someone isn't happy with?

You're reading an awful lot of words there that I didn't use.   But I find that I often have a polar opposite view to you in most things on this Board, so all is good.

 

 

 

[Boris]

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

 

And a third and a fourth?

 

Democracy does not work like that.  You seem to want to undermine the will of the people.  

 

But it does work like that.  Had remain won, would UKIP simply have packed up and stopped campaigning to leave the EU?  Would elements of the Tory Party simply said, "Oh well, that's that"?

 

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Did you think after the vote it would be a seamless divorce?  Did you not foresee roadblocks?  Are you saying people are honestly that ****ing stupid?

 

Mibbes aye, mibbes naw.  What I would have expected was the Govt to act in the best interests of the country, not their own party.

 

1 hour ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Of course it was going to be a tough job ahead with lots of big bad decisions being made that would be unpopular.  Oh but no, now I want to call injustice.

 

I really with these protestors would STFU and do one.  You had your vote, I had mine – deal with it.

 

So had we simply from the off went "OK, lets go like Norway (or Switzerland)" then there would have been no recriminations from Brexiters?  We would have, after all, have left the EU.

 

But I think what is most damning about this whole charade is the sheer shambolic handling of it by this Government.

 

Not to mention the electoral commissions report on the referendum and LeaveEU's breaking of electoral law.

 

Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Gove etc may all talk about the "will of the people", but that's just BS imo.  They couldn't give a stuff. (Arguably that's a given as they are Tories after all!)

[Nookie Bear]

2 hours ago, Boris said:

 

May's "red lines" weren't on the ballot paper at the EU referendum.

 

Leaving the EU could mean so many things, but we ended up with May's deal.  The minority PM, btw.

 

So given the magnitude of this event, and given the point that we know more now than we did at the time of the referendum, wouldn't a second vote make sense?

 

If the mood is against Brexit now, then surely a democratic deficit to not canvas the people again?  If the mood is still for Brexit then we can have no complaints.

 

This whole shambles is, imo, less about Brexit per se, but factionalism within the Tory party and them trying to manage it!

 

It's the biggest con since the Hatton Garden job!

 

Is this really true, though?

 

I get that intelligent (!) people such as ourselves are now better able to explain the positives of the EU, perhaps in terms of our work etc, but i wonder how much effort has been taken to really convince the average Brexiteer that it is really in their best interests to remain?

 

Do enough Brexiteers in, say, the Midlands, really know that much more than they did then? Has the impact (non-impact) on immigration been explained? What about EU investment in their region or the impact of major companies deserting London? Or have we just shouted "racist gammon" at them and expected them to apologies for not being as 'worldly' as us.

 

What have they learned in the last few months, except that Parliament does not appear to trust their vote?

 

Remainers have become much more organised and vocal in their support, but i don;t believe those who really need to listen are listening.

 

 

[Boris]

31 minutes ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Is this really true, though?

 

I get that intelligent (!) people such as ourselves are now better able to explain the positives of the EU, perhaps in terms of our work etc, but i wonder how much effort has been taken to really convince the average Brexiteer that it is really in their best interests to remain?

 

Do enough Brexiteers in, say, the Midlands, really know that much more than they did then? Has the impact (non-impact) on immigration been explained? What about EU investment in their region or the impact of major companies deserting London? Or have we just shouted "racist gammon" at them and expected them to apologies for not being as 'worldly' as us.

 

What have they learned in the last few months, except that Parliament does not appear to trust their vote?

 

Remainers have become much more organised and vocal in their support, but i don;t believe those who really need to listen are listening.

 

 

 

I think you make a decent point there. Perhaps that is why there should be another referendum so these points can be made clearer and leavers can argue back with more substance than numbers on the side of a bus?

 

Interesting that what's happened at Westminster post referendum is exactly the concept of sovereignty, but can that be squared with taking back control?

 

Perhaps if nothing else this whole shambles shows how broken the uk is and how outdated and unrepresentative our political institutions are?

[maroonlegions]

On 25/03/2019 at 12:30, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Wouldn’t you agree though that the burden of proof/evidence (for want of a better phrase) has to be on the side of those proposing massive change? Those who voted No/Remain weren’t asking for anything - they were simply backing the status quo. Yes/leave were seismic changes and for that reason, their campaigns should be judged by a higher standard.

Changing ones mind, wanting to reverse a decision you made based on NEW EVIDENCE is a sign of intelligence.

 

Apply that to what people were feed by the Tory hard line Brexiteers in that vote and what that has turned into ,then its hardly rock science to admit ,that Mays version of that Brexit is  far removed from what the British people were told.

 

The UK never voted for a  possible NO DEAL BREXIT. The blame is at the feet of May and her hard line Brexiteers.

Edited March 27, 2019 by maroonlegions

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

20 minutes ago, maroonlegions said:

The UK never voted for a  possible NO DEAL BREXIT.

 

Of course they did. I'm not being funny but you think people on estates in Hull gave a **** about 'a deal'? They just voted to leave.

[Nookie Bear]

1 minute ago, Dusk_Till_Dawn said:

 

Of course they did. I'm not being funny but you think people on estates in Hull gave a **** about 'a deal'? They just voted to leave.

 

Correct. 

 

And nobody they trusted were on hand to advise them otherwise. They were just racists, apparently. 

[Restonbabe]

We should be out by now able to negotiate free trade deals on our own. 

[ri Alban]

10 hours ago, Nookie Bear said:

 

Correct. 

 

And nobody they trusted were on hand to advise them otherwise. They were just racists, apparently. 

Apparently!  

[Bridge of Djoum]

16 hours ago, Haken said:

The line that goes something like 'I don't want a second referendum because it's undemocratic' is a bit of an odd one for me.  I see the whole thing as a bit of a trial which ended with the jury making its decision on the basis of the information it was given.   Since then, new and more detailed information has come to light and there is at least a concern that the jury may have taken a decision not having been fully aware of all the facts, or appreciative of the true extent of ramifications.  It may be that the jury, if asked to reconsider, will reach the same conclusion, but at least it will have done so from a more informed position.

  

Reverse the outcome. Would a 2nd referendum be ok with you?

 

Your 1st line is odd. How can a democratic vote be ''odd'''? I se what you're saying and I can agree with a lot of it, but you cannot have a vote, then another and call it democratic. It's shifting goalposts. 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Bridge of Djoum

[Bridge of Djoum]

On 26/03/2019 at 03:26, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Where?

The UK or Uruguay?

 

 

 

This kind of wishy-washy, sentimental guff is for middle-class students who make their own hemp clothes, and simpletons.

The People's Republic of Norwich.

[ri Alban]

My brexit back up arrived yesterday. Taxi badge just in case.

[Haken]

2 hours ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

Reverse the outcome. Would a 2nd referendum be ok with you?

 

Your 1st line is odd. How can a democratic vote be ''odd'''? I se what you're saying and I can agree with a lot of it, but you cannot have a vote, then another and call it democratic. It's shifting goalposts. 

I didn’t say the referendum was undemocratic.  And the goalposts, in terms of what people know now compared to what they knew three years ago, have shifted dramatically.  Neither did I say I wanted the outcome reversed.  I’d simply like an outcome that is informed.

[Bridge of Djoum]

Just now, Haken said:

I didn’t say the referendum was undemocratic.  And the goalposts, in terms of what people know now compared to what they knew three years ago, have shifted dramatically.  Neither did I say I wanted the outcome reversed.  I’d simply like an outcome that is informed.

Can you name a vote, referendum or election where you are sure everyone was fully informed? If you agree the 1st referendum 

WAS democratic, then what would a 2nd be? Super democratic? Or simply unnecessary as we already had the democratic vote and outcome. I reiterate I am in favor of remain, but I'm a big fan of democracy, also. I don't like the outcome but It must be accepted as the will of the people at the time and under the terms of the question defined. 

 

If a 2nd referendum is held, and it goes the way of remain, then ''new information'' which wasn't available before and is beneficial to the leave campaign became public knowledge, would you then support a 3rd referendum?  This scenario is certainly not without the realms of possibility, and if it doesn't make a mockery of democracy, it certainly undermines it. 

[i8hibsh]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

My brexit back up arrived yesterday. Taxi badge just in case.

 

 

Backup?

 

 

I bet you are one of those people that thought 00:00 on 01.01.2000 was going to be the start of end times.

 

I mean ffs, We have not even been in this prison for 50 years. That is 50 years out of the story of Wales, N.Ireland, Scotland and England. 46 years to be precise. Apart from DNA fingerprinting and the world wide web almost all the great things we have done have been outwith this period. We will be ok, we are not a little baby that needs its mother's milk or a nappy changed.

 

People will still hide in lorries and queue up in their millions to get in. Fruit will still get picked and hospitals will not close down. The only question is will we have a stronger economy? Well, taking the past few thousand years and extrapolating we will boom and bust like always. We will be in line with how the world moves and not just the 27 others we shared our cell with.  We also will not have as many hungry mouths to feed and we can concentrate more on feeding our own mouths.

[Nookie Bear]

3 hours ago, ri Alban said:

Apparently!  

 

1 million Scots votes Leave as well. 

 

Although i I imagine that included quite a few Nats who wanted to create more favourable conditions for Scottish Indy. 

[Haken]

1 hour ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

Can you name a vote, referendum or election where you are sure everyone was fully informed? If you agree the 1st referendum 

WAS democratic, then what would a 2nd be? Super democratic? Or simply unnecessary as we already had the democratic vote and outcome. I reiterate I am in favor of remain, but I'm a big fan of democracy, also. I don't like the outcome but It must be accepted as the will of the people at the time and under the terms of the question defined. 

 

If a 2nd referendum is held, and it goes the way of remain, then ''new information'' which wasn't available before and is beneficial to the leave campaign became public knowledge, would you then support a 3rd referendum?  This scenario is certainly not without the realms of possibility, and if it doesn't make a mockery of democracy, it certainly undermines it. 

You keep adding words that I didn't use.  I said 'informed'; you come back with 'fully informed'.  

 

You could argue that a decision taken on the basis of partial and/or misleading information is not in the best interests of democracy.

 

 

[Bridge of Djoum]

1 minute ago, Haken said:

You keep adding words that I didn't use.  I said 'informed'; you come back with 'fully informed'.  

 

You could argue that a decision taken on the basis of partial and/or misleading information is not in the best interests of democracy.

 

 

In your world it would seem virtually no decision is valid, then. Certainly where politics is involved. 

 

Ok, fair enough. I said ''fully informed''. It doesn't in anyway change my point. TBF, you haven't really answered anything I asked. 

[Skacelsid]

I voted remain, but the vote should stand, we must learn from this fiasco and reform our democracy and voting system. Basically a third of the voting public has made this huge decision and decided our country is to leave. The results of the divisions caused will be damaging to society and public order for a long time, that is still to come. If a basic majority is seen as the decision maker, should not compulsory voting be introduced for referendums ( if not elections ). I think people would then accept the result more readily however disappointed. People could now vote on line, the technology is there, as well as postal and at the poling station, then there are very few excuses for not doing so. The SNP reduced the voting age for Indi-ref 1, for no other reason than attracting votes. If they are indeed reformers of democracy would they not introduce compulsory voting in preparation for an Indi-ref 2, ( I think not ) Would it not be better if the whole country decided if we were in favour of leaving the UK. Lessons must be learned and political parties must be wary of including referendums in their manifesto. We elect politicians to make decisions.

[Haken]

7 minutes ago, Bridge of Djoum said:

In your world it would seem virtually no decision is valid, then. Certainly where politics is involved. 

 

Ok, fair enough. I said ''fully informed''. It doesn't in anyway change my point. TBF, you haven't really answered anything I asked. 

Didn't think you were actually looking for answers.  It's clear, in your head if nowhere else, that you're right and everyone else is either in agreement with you or wrong.

 

For clarity - though it is clear from what I posted - I'm in favour of a decision being taken on the basis of the best, most relevant and up to date information.  I don't neccessarily disagree with the existing outcome; I just don't have confidence in it.

 

 

 

[Bridge of Djoum]

Just now, Haken said:

Didn't think you were actually looking for answers.  It's clear, in your head if nowhere else, that you're right and everyone else is either in agreement with you or wrong.

 

For clarity - though it is clear from what I posted - I'm in favour of a decision being taken on the basis of the best, most relevant and up to date information.  I don't neccessarily disagree with the existing outcome; I just don't have confidence in it.

 

 

 

That's just utter nonsense. 

 

 

[Jambof3tornado]

Not that there was any doubt but the longer this drags on the more obvious it becomes that MPs cannot be trusted with important decisions. Thats as scary as it gets.

 

8 different options debated and they still couldn't agree. 

 

Wur doomed!

[Taffin]

Having another remain/leave referendum would not sit well with me me as the people have already spoken.

 

However, there should be a referendum that sees the options parliament agree on put back to the electorate to make a final decision. That should include remain.

 

Edited March 28, 2019 by Taffin

[Francis Albert]

12 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Having another remain/leave referendum would not sit well with me me as the people have already spoken.

 

However, there should be a referendum that sees the options parliament agree on put back to the electorate to make a final decision. That should include remain.

 

Parliament hasn't agreed on any options! And don't the other 27 EU members who have already agreed a deal with the UK have some say in "the final decision"?