How does that make a difference? He said 52% was not decisive. If it’s not decisive for the status quo, it definitely isn’t decisive for such a massive change.

 

But do you think for one second he would have said that if he thought Leave was winning?

 

That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

And? How does that make any difference? He made his intentions clear, had the vote been a narrow victory for remain he woukd have pressed on full steam ahead calling for another referendum.

 

So you'd condemn him for doing exactly what Remain have done? :unsure:

 

I suspect Remain would have said that 'as this is an endorsement of the status quo, that is the end of the argument'.

But do you think for one second he would have said that if he thought Leave was winning?

 

That's a rhetorical question, BTW.

 

Of course not because he's a lying far-right-supporting corrupt treacherous hypocrite who criticises people for doing one-thing and does another far-worse thing himself which is no different from what he claimed about people he disagrees with. The great thing about being provably a lying, corrupt hypocrite is that it gives great ammunition against them whenever they open their mouths and make further lies and supporters try to justify their lies and rubbish arguments. Just as Brexiters still moan about a pamphlet that wasn't illegal as some sort of justification for illegal activity.

 

Farage and his supporters who WOULD have not given up had Remain won by 52% can't use that as an argument and then rattle on as if 52% for the other side is in some way a massive end-of-the-issue justification. It isn't, and for exactly the same reasons they quoted. Rees-Mogg BTW advocated a final say by the public on the final deal when he was trying to persuade people it was a good idea. So another liar.

 

That's not a rhetorical question BTW, it's a statement of fact.

Of course not because he's a lying far-right-supporting corrupt treacherous hypocrite who criticises people for doing one-thing and does another far-worse thing himself

 

Just as Brexiters still moan about a pamphlet that wasn't illegal as some sort of justification for illegal activity.

 

Apart from the 'far-right' part which I could argue about, you've described just about every politician. :rolleyes:

 

So if Leave's 'overspend' had happened 1 day before the official start of the campaign, then you would had no problem with it? :unsure:

 

So you'd condemn him for doing exactly what Remain have done? :unsure:

 

I suspect Remain would have said that 'as this is an endorsement of the status quo, that is the end of the argument'.

 

We have had nearly three years of protracted near non starting negotiations, experts laying out the consequences of leaving without a deal(many of which leave voters had no clue about whatsoever), and the EU not giving us our cake and eating it(as certain Brexiteers said they would). All dismissed as project fear but many starting to come to fruition now(see Nissan). Obvious to anyone with half a brain that wasn't blinded by the promises of never ending gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

So yep, I think the fact that some remainers(not all - note how I said earlier that however ill informed the vote was I understand the need to respect it) are calling for a second vote AFTER all of these POST referendum shenanigans(not straight after the vote) is not unreasonable in the slightest.

Edited February 3, 20196 yr by mald487

Jeremy Hunt has said yesterday according to a DS poster that the Government will carry out the will of the people as that's the right thing to do. He said there'll be no delay or recinding of A50 then. Can't find a link though.

 

He's right. To ensure we leave on March 29th is absolutely the right thing to do in our democracy as that's what the people voted for.

I didn’t realise people voted on the 23rd June 2016 to leave on 29th March 2019

I didn’t realise people voted on the 23rd June 2016 to leave on 29th March 2019

 

 

We voted to leave. Atricle 50 was triggered and the two-years' notice is up on March 29th so we must leave that date.

Edited February 3, 20196 yr by Common Sense

There’s no reason to rush into something that has absolute significant consequences just because of an artificial date. We’re less then two months away and the current situation could threaten the Good Friday Agreement, create food shortages as well as extremely high financial implications.

 

Surely if we are leaving, it is better to resolve these issues to secure the best for our future?

There’s no reason to rush into something that has absolute significant consequences just because of an artificial date. We’re less then two months away and the current situation could threaten the Good Friday Agreement, create food shortages as well as extremely high financial implications.

 

Surely if we are leaving, it is better to resolve these issues to secure the best for our future?

 

 

No because if we delay and delay we could end up never leaving. I say we make a clean break and leave as soon as we legally can and that's March 29th. They need us more than we need them so bet you any money they'll offer a better deal as the date nears. That's the common held view amongst us Brexiteers on other forums. May's resolve is said to be strong too, just like Hunt's and she's determined to leave then too. Can't see her asking them to delay so the only way would be if Parliament does.

Edited February 3, 20196 yr by Common Sense

So when the economy goes to shit, I trust that you’ll be happy to sacrifice every penny of your benefits to offset the economic consequences of the choice you willfully made

So when the economy goes to shit, I trust that you’ll be happy to sacrifice every penny of your benefits to offset the economic consequences of the choice you willfully made

 

 

Yes of course I will. My wife will have to support me through my ilness. :)

We voted to leave. Atricle 50 was triggered and the two-years' notice is up on March 29th so we must leave that date.

 

But this is a piece of homework we must get exactly right therefore it doesn’t matter if it’s handed in late.

No because if we delay and delay we could end up never leaving. I say we make a clean break and leave as soon as we legally can and that's March 29th. They need us more than we need them so bet you any money they'll offer a better deal as the date nears. That's the common held view amongst us Brexiteers on other forums. May's resolve is said to be strong too, just like Hunt's and she's determined to leave then too. Can't see her asking them to delay so the only way would be if Parliament does.

So you are part of a group that ignores questions. That doesn’t make those questions go away.

Apart from the 'far-right' part which I could argue about, you've described just about every politician. :rolleyes:

 

So if Leave's 'overspend' had happened 1 day before the official start of the campaign, then you would had no problem with it? :unsure:

 

I would still have problems with it because it involved illegal hacking of personal data which, as anyone who is responsible for making sure personal data is secure under the Data protection Act (such as myself) knows, would get me prosecuted and probably dismissed for failing to keep it secure or for allowing others to use it, so that's a crime; using funds from a foreign government and not declaring them is a crime; and liaising with foreign powers to undermine British democracy is a crime.

 

Not every politician is as outrageously hypocritical and lying as you suggest. Some of them have scruples, and answer questions honestly and directly, and they can belong to any party, it's more of a character flaw to lie and deceive than it is a political flaw. It just so happens that the leading Brexiters all have those flaws. One can draw their own conclusions as to motives and why the Leave campaign seemed to attract those sort of people, in the same way that banking seems to attract people who love sloshing around in money and also have no scruples.

Yes of course I will. My wife will have to support me through my ilness. :)

 

 

Good for you. Most of us don't have that luxury of not having to contribute anything to society. We will have to deal with the sh#tstorm that you and others like you have helped to create.

Where does the 'they need us more than we need them' sheer arrogance come from? How can anyone draw this conclusion?

 

Crock of shite I call it!

But this is a piece of homework we must get exactly right therefore it doesn’t matter if it’s handed in late.

 

I wish you'd have been one of my teachers at secondary school. :lol:

 

Seriously though, putting aside the fact that Remainers don't want to leave the EU at all - if you consider 2 years insufficient time, how long do you think *would* be?

I wish you'd have been one of my teachers at secondary school. :lol:

 

Seriously though, putting aside the fact that Remainers don't want to leave the EU at all - if you consider 2 years insufficient time, how long do you think *would* be?

I wouldn’t say I considered 2 years insufficient time - it’s just because we’re now at the end of those two years withut an agreed deal in place which means the current baseline deal is no deal, which should not be an option. This is something that has serious consequences and so you have to make sure you’re doing it right.

I wish you'd have been one of my teachers at secondary school. :lol:

 

Seriously though, putting aside the fact that Remainers don't want to leave the EU at all - if you consider 2 years insufficient time, how long do you think *would* be?

 

It's not that two years is insufficient, it's that the government has spent those last two years pratting about, not getting this sorted sooner, thinking that the EU would roll over and have it's tummy tickled(because...y'know Rule Britannia. Funny how that didn't happen. I wonder who on earth could have forseen a group of 27 not bending over backwards for one ex member) and is now nearly out of time.