[Tiste Simeon]

So hang on a minute... What they're saying is that people who made a vote two years ago CAN change their minds and CAN have another vote on the subject??

Interesting...

[Traveller]

I'm pretty fed up with Leavers saying that having another vote is somehow undemocratic. They didn't grasp what they were voting for originally; if the government still can't define what Brexit is, then no one did. Anyway, elections and general elections take place every few years, why should the vague and monumentally destructive Brexit vote stand indefinitely without another look now?

[Tiste Simeon]

Even if they did grasp what they were voting for that's pretty irrelevant. We had an advisory referendum to see what the country wanted. A very slender majority said leave and the government (allegedly) started moving towards that goal. A second referendum is a very natural and democratic process after two years of looking at what Brexit is and how it will effect us. I'm an ideal world, we would be given transparent and open discussion on it so we could all be better informed, and make another conscious vote (which includes the option to remain.) It's very democratic.

Unfortunately what we got was two years of backbiting, hated and bile with vague soundbites, half hearted attempts at sounding confident, refusal to share reports and assessments, self serving right wingers trying to sound righteous and indignant, lies lies lies pure lies all the fracking time, racism and hate crimes rising rapidly, the report that vote leave cheated and lied but nothing really changing, the right wing press undermining our judicial and parliamentary process and an ever widening gap between factions.

Oh and Theresa May survived.

[Maark Abbott]

Essentially a re-vote doesn't benefit the 1% or the racist gammons. Which is why they're vocal about it.

At its core, Brexit is about enabling massive transfer of wealth from the people to the Tories - which has ALWAYS been their mandate.

[Tapper]

Traveller, on 12 December 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

I'm pretty fed up with Leavers saying that having another vote is somehow undemocratic. They didn't grasp what they were voting for originally; if the government still can't define what Brexit is, then no one did. Anyway, elections and general elections take place every few years, why should the vague and monumentally destructive Brexit vote stand indefinitely without another look now?

Well, I hate to agree with Farage and the Brexiteers, but doing another Exit/Remain referendum is idiocy because the principle of Brexit was supported by a slim majority of those who bothered to vote. The only two reasons to hold another referendum with this question are
1 - Leave cheated so much the result is invalidated;
2 - some legal challenge emerges. Unfortunately, the CJEU refused just such a challenge from expat Britons who couldn't vote.

Voting again on this exact issue because people were/are in any combination gullible, uninformed, misinformed, racists or idiots isn't a valid reason (imho, obviously). As a voter, it's your task to inform yourself, and for too many, reading the Sun is just that. Too bad: as I think Churchill may have said, "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". In a few years (say, 10-15 or so) a new referendum on rejoining could be held, but that's not the same and the damage will be done already.

A referendum on the negotiated deal, now that could work. But that can't be exactly answered by a For/Against question, because Against leaves way too much open, as witnessed by the Brexiteer story changing from Brexit Good Remain Bad wraaaaooohrrrr! to "the principle of Brexit is good, the negotiated deal stinks.
From there, the options range from no-deal to Canada-style to renegotiate to Norway-style to cut out the backstop without ever taking into account what the EU will refuse to entertain.

[Maark Abbott]

Tapper, on 13 December 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

Traveller, on 12 December 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

I'm pretty fed up with Leavers saying that having another vote is somehow undemocratic. They didn't grasp what they were voting for originally; if the government still can't define what Brexit is, then no one did. Anyway, elections and general elections take place every few years, why should the vague and monumentally destructive Brexit vote stand indefinitely without another look now?

Well, I hate to agree with Farage and the Brexiteers, but doing another Exit/Remain referendum is idiocy because the principle of Brexit was supported by a slim majority of those who bothered to vote. The only two reasons to hold another referendum with this question are
1 - Leave cheated so much the result is invalidated;
2 - some legal challenge emerges. Unfortunately, the CJEU refused just such a challenge from expat Britons who couldn't vote.

Voting again on this exact issue because people were/are in any combination gullible, uninformed, misinformed, racists or idiots isn't a valid reason (imho, obviously). As a voter, it's your task to inform yourself, and for too many, reading the Sun is just that. Too bad: as I think Churchill may have said, "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". In a few years (say, 10-15 or so) a new referendum on rejoining could be held, but that's not the same and the damage will be done already.

A referendum on the negotiated deal, now that could work. But that can't be exactly answered by a For/Against question, because Against leaves way too much open, as witnessed by the Brexiteer story changing from Brexit Good Remain Bad wraaaaooohrrrr! to "the principle of Brexit is good, the negotiated deal stinks.
From there, the options range from no-deal to Canada-style to renegotiate to Norway-style to cut out the backstop without ever taking into account what the EU will refuse to entertain.

Really, it all just needs calling off.

[Tapper]

Maark Abbott, on 13 December 2018 - 02:01 PM, said:

Tapper, on 13 December 2018 - 12:09 PM, said:

Traveller, on 12 December 2018 - 08:42 PM, said:

I'm pretty fed up with Leavers saying that having another vote is somehow undemocratic. They didn't grasp what they were voting for originally; if the government still can't define what Brexit is, then no one did. Anyway, elections and general elections take place every few years, why should the vague and monumentally destructive Brexit vote stand indefinitely without another look now?

Well, I hate to agree with Farage and the Brexiteers, but doing another Exit/Remain referendum is idiocy because the principle of Brexit was supported by a slim majority of those who bothered to vote. The only two reasons to hold another referendum with this question are
1 - Leave cheated so much the result is invalidated;
2 - some legal challenge emerges. Unfortunately, the CJEU refused just such a challenge from expat Britons who couldn't vote.

Voting again on this exact issue because people were/are in any combination gullible, uninformed, misinformed, racists or idiots isn't a valid reason (imho, obviously). As a voter, it's your task to inform yourself, and for too many, reading the Sun is just that. Too bad: as I think Churchill may have said, "the best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter". In a few years (say, 10-15 or so) a new referendum on rejoining could be held, but that's not the same and the damage will be done already.

A referendum on the negotiated deal, now that could work. But that can't be exactly answered by a For/Against question, because Against leaves way too much open, as witnessed by the Brexiteer story changing from Brexit Good Remain Bad wraaaaooohrrrr! to "the principle of Brexit is good, the negotiated deal stinks.
From there, the options range from no-deal to Canada-style to renegotiate to Norway-style to cut out the backstop without ever taking into account what the EU will refuse to entertain.

Really, it all just needs calling off.

Yes. And the excellent news is that the CJEU apparently left that option 100% unilaterally open to the UK without allowing the other 27 EU members a vote on it.
Why there is no majority for doing just that ASAP I don't know (well, I guess all those MPs from Leave constituencies fear for their next election chances), but that is a different discussion

This post has been edited by Tapper: 13 December 2018 - 02:39 PM

[Gorefest]

Norway-style would be just about the worst possible outcome, even worse than no deal if you ask me. Then you just tie yourself into the bloc without any say on proceedings.

[Maark Abbott]

TheRetiredBridgeburner, on 12 December 2018 - 12:27 PM, said:

I'm reading the liveblog of PMQs..... some people on here may know better than me (as in whether this is in fact just standard for PMQs) as I don't follow it that often, but I can't help but feel May answering everything about Brexit with "Labour want to ruin the country" is smacking of desperation.

This is May and the Tory party's only answer to anything, and it's pretty telling.

[Mezla PigDog]

I'm pretty furious about the latest developments due to the delay in the vote. Regardless of whether we leave or remain it's playing brinkmanship with peoples lives hoping to run down the clock so that MPs have no alternative but to vote in favour of whatever deal she brings or risk a no deal crash out at the end of March. It's all just Tories trying to cling onto power because they're terrified of the spectre of Corbyn and losing their hard earned (inherited) privilege. Party politics needs to go out the window, it's a national crisis.

The business I work for could be on its knees in April. So could my others halves - our employers could have no turnover to pay us if the free movement of goods ends. It's absolutely disgusting.

[Tiste Simeon]

Ah but you're forgetting the blue passports, Mez...

[Maark Abbott]

As long as it benefits those in power, your struggles are not relevant, Mez.

This is the unfortunate reality of the Tory party - everything else is secondary to them having wealth and power.

[Maark Abbott]

Police shouldn't ever reopen a closed case. What, new evidence has emerged that says actually, the outcome of this investigation will be different due to said evidence? Nope, it's not democratic. A closed case means a closed case. Will of the demos!

[Maark Abbott]

52% of the population have decided that all of the population must shoot themselves in the foot. You must therefore shoot yourself in the foot. You have no choice over shooting yourself in the foot or not, you must perform this act. Now we must get behind our government to decide upon the best possible calibre of bullet to shoot ourselves with.

[Khellendros]

Maark Abbott, on 20 December 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

52% of the population have decided that all of the population must shoot themselves in the foot. You must therefore shoot yourself in the foot. You have no choice over shooting yourself in the foot or not, you must perform this act. Now we must get behind our government to decide upon the best possible calibre of bullet to shoot ourselves with.

And if we can't reach agreement on bullet or which toe has to go, then no deal! We hack the whole foot off!

[Maark Abbott]

Khellendros, on 22 December 2018 - 09:07 AM, said:

Maark Abbott, on 20 December 2018 - 12:56 PM, said:

52% of the population have decided that all of the population must shoot themselves in the foot. You must therefore shoot yourself in the foot. You have no choice over shooting yourself in the foot or not, you must perform this act. Now we must get behind our government to decide upon the best possible calibre of bullet to shoot ourselves with.

And if we can't reach agreement on bullet or which toe has to go, then no deal! We hack the whole foot off!

Precisely. It's insanity.

[Malankazooie]

OH SNAPIMPLE!

You guys gonna watch? yes? no? meh? I mean obviously the exaggeration/absurdity dial is going to be turned up to 11, but it could be worth the shits and giggles. Also, Lol at the actor portraying Boris Johnson.

[Maark Abbott]

Malankazooie, on 10 January 2019 - 06:44 PM, said:

I mean obviously the exaggeration/absurdity dial is going to be turned up to 11

You mean it wasn't already?

[TheRetiredBridgeburner]

On the news this morning, May saying not leaving at all is a possibility if her proposals are rejected by MPs.

After two years of this nonsense??

I voted Remain, so I'm fine with not leaving in principle. But my word, the waste of time and money this will all have been if that's what happens. The woman surely has to go whichever way things fall?

[Mezla PigDog]

I agree but blaming it on her is letting the rest of the Tory government off the hook. It's a Tory created crisis from start to finish. And Corbyn can't get away blameless now, complete lack of opposition leadership on the subject.

Have some many customers calling me about what to do about Brexit since the New Year.