If you think that would be an acceptable option, then how about this scenario : The gov't loses a GE but cancels the result - surely you cannot think that would be acceptable? In 3rd world countries, actions like that have caused many civil wars...

 

You know that's not remotely comparable if only because of the passage of time, if the parties spent three years trying to form a government and had their solution rejected conclusively then the result SHOULD be canceled and re-run.

 

And you bring up civil war yet scoff at the thought that many Brexit options risk that also, and I'd say far more so than a simple cancellation. Particularly anything that circumvents the backstop is playing with fire but a disastrous no deal situation wouldn't look too pretty either. Civil wars and associated civil violence happen when people are desperate and see their safety compromised and their future uncertain. That doesn't happen in the event of a stopped Brexit. One of the few good things about May's deal is that it knows of this risk and avoids it.

I see that Unilver are going to stockpile Magnum ice-creams. LOL. We'll have to live on those then. Raspberry sorbet one for me please. :D

Point of order - we are each only 0.00000575% responsible, yet because we are prepared to speak out & defend Brexit, we are treated as if we are 100% responsible. As for 'immoral' - perhaps we should have expected a Remainer to claim that voting is immoral, given their desire to do everything possible to circumvent a democratic vote... :rolleyes:

 

err kettle frying pan, says the man petrified of another democratic vote on a deal that no-one seems to like and which was very much not what was promised by the lying, cheating, corrupt Leave campaigners.....

 

Just saying.

And you bring up civil war yet scoff at the thought that many Brexit options risk that also, and I'd say far more so than a simple cancellation. Particularly anything that circumvents the backstop is playing with fire but a disastrous no deal situation wouldn't look too pretty either. Civil wars and associated civil violence happen when people are desperate and see their safety compromised and their future uncertain. That doesn't happen in the event of a stopped Brexit. One of the few good things about May's deal is that it knows of this risk and avoids it.

 

 

I'd say in the event of a stopped Brexit there will be a lot of very very angry people so who knows what that may lead to. We'll think that the result of the referendum was being ignored.

I'd say in the event of a stopped Brexit there will be a lot of very very angry people so who knows what that may lead to. We'll think that the result of the referendum was being ignored.

There will be a lot of very angry Leave voters when they realise that leaving the EU will have solved precisely none of the problems that most concern them.

And angry Leave voters in noBrexitland will do precisely... what? Localised petty riots they claim are making a point? Even MORE angry messages on Facebook? Hell, people who voted Remain have been very angry for the better part of 3 years and the most we've done is a 600,000 strong peaceful protest that I'm frankly amazed we managed to organise.

 

Huge bouts of civil violence happen when a population is in true danger. Anger aids their need for violence to change something, it rarely sparks it itself. So I'd be a lot more worried about angry Leave voters in Suedehead's situation, after they've taken the economic hit many of you claim will be worth it, and are not seeing another way out.

err kettle frying pan, says the man petrified of another democratic vote on a deal that no-one seems to like

 

I've lost count of the times you've made that false claim, despite me reiterating the exact opposite!

And angry Leave voters in noBrexitland will do precisely... what?

 

 

Well I'd guess that many would never vote again as they'd have seen that the vote they cast in the refrendum had been ignored by the Government.

I've lost count of the times you've made that false claim, despite me reiterating the exact opposite!

 

what part, and be very specific, of that sentence is in any way incorrect?

 

Do you want another democratic vote? If not why not?

 

No-one liking the deal on the table? MP's turned it down. The public dont generally like it (what they actually know about it).

 

Promised deal? No it wasn't - we were promised the easiest deal in history, with all the advantages of EU membership and very few disadvantages, and many many more advantages on top that we don;t currently have. So, lies.

 

Cheating? Corrupt? Spent at least twice the legal amount, plus unknown (quantifiable so far) help from foreign governments and rich crooks - this is on record, and Farage is a person of interest by the FBI, along with Cambridge Analytica.

 

 

 

Well I'd guess that many would never vote again as they'd have seen that the vote they cast in the refrendum had been ignored by the Government.

And half of them had never voted until the Brexit vote. So that’s not much of a loss

Well I'd guess that many would never vote again as they'd have seen that the vote they cast in the refrendum had been ignored by the Government.

 

It wouldnt be ignored if there was another referendum on the actual deal and opinion had changed. Then it would be democracy in action and the 48% would have to democratically accept the result, or campaign for another referendum on a deal that we would this time know all the facts about.

 

How about we all vote for a reactionary right-wing Tory government that wants to lower wages, cut benefits, destroy the NHS just because we are sulking at having not had our view win? Cos that's what you're saying: "If I don't get my way I"m not going to play!" That's what democracy is all about - having differing views....

It wouldnt be ignored if there was another referendum on the actual deal and opinion had changed. Then it would be democracy in action and the 48% would have to democratically accept the result, or campaign for another referendum on a deal that we would this time know all the facts about.

 

Why do we need another referendum when we've had one which gave a clear margin for LEAVE, OUT? I'll make a guess here and say the result would shock you all remainers and be a wide margin this time for leave, something like 60-40.

 

Yes I know that and democracy is respecting the other view and implementing the result of the referendum.

Edited February 1, 20196 yr by Common Sense

Surely the fact that the government has ignored all the country’s major issues for 2 and a half years and focused all their energy on this instead is proof that the vote was not ignored? Deciding it’s not a great idea after all wouldn’t be the same as ignoring.

Why do we need another referendum when we've had one which gave a clear margin for LEAVE, OUT?

 

Yes I know that and democracy is respecting the other view and implementing the result of the referendum.

 

1) It was only an advisory referendum

 

2) The winning margin was hardly decisive. Had it been a binding referendum, it may well not have been enough to count.

 

3) LEAVE BROKE THE LAW. If the referendum had been binding, there would have been provision to annul the result in the event of the winning side cheating.

 

4) Leave didn't offer even the vaguest hint of the beginnings of anything resembling g a plan. Leave voters were voting for something entirely undefined, We now have something rather clearer to vote on.

 

5) if you are so confident that Leave would win again, why are you so scared of another vote.

 

How many more times do these simple facts need to be pointed out?

Surely the fact that the government has ignored all the country’s major issues for 2 and a half years and focused all their energy on this instead is proof that the vote was not ignored? Deciding it’s not a great idea after all wouldn’t be the same as ignoring.

 

 

Yes, good point. You can't turn around and say it wasn't a good idea after all when the people voted for it quite decisively. :)

1) It was only an advisory referendum

 

 

Well I certainly didn't know that and I doubt many people who voted, remain or leave, knew that.

Yes, good point. You can't turn around and say it wasn't a good idea after all when the people voted for it quite decisively. :)

 

That was not my point at all and you know that. Stop trolling, this is too serious a discussion for that.

Surely the fact that the government has ignored all the country’s major issues for 2 and a half years and focused all their energy on this instead is proof that the vote was not ignored? .

 

 

I messed the quote up. That's what I mean is a good point. Yes I agree. Far too much Parliamentary time's been spent on this. A row's now erupted as MP's have had their half-term February break cancelled and some want re-imbursing for ski-ing holidays that they want to take with their families. Some will defy the Whips and still go away.

Edited February 1, 20196 yr by Common Sense

Well I certainly didn't know that and I doubt many people who voted, remain or leave, knew that.

Thee's a lot that voters didn't know.

Thee's a lot that voters didn't know.

 

 

That was May's and the government's fault then. It should have been far far better publicised. I haven't yet met a person who didn't think it was legally binding.