Brexit again...

[Andyregs 197]

37 minutes ago, For Us All said:

It doesn't seem to matter what we think anymore,that finished in 2016.

Surely can’t complain when you don’t even know what you want yourself. 

[Nofinikea 283]

1 hour ago, For Us All said:

Well,I can't  see them funding the courts to thwart Brexit?

As usual you just try and make smart arse comments rather than add anything to the debate.  I will treat you as the pathetic kid you come across as.

[Davebrad 99]

On ‎19‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 12:31, Nofinikea said:

No.  I think a 2nd vote needs to have a minimum turnout to be valid first of all and then if the original vote is to be overturned then a certain remain majority must be achieved, say 60% for example?  So for arguments sake, if 60% of 80% of the electorate votes to reverse the decision then so be it, otherwise we carry on with the original result.

That means approximately 27M people would need to vote to reverse the decision,  approx 10M more than originally voted to leave.  To get those numbers a significant number of leavers would have to vote the other way 2nd time around.

Now why wouldnt any Brexit supporter accept that?

because we've already voted once on this subject... if we have a second referendum/peoples vote where will it end, Keep to the original result or a precedent will be set. ie if you lost just cause as much mither, and you will get another chance... as it is from now on watch how many proposals in parliament get taken to court...

[Nofinikea 283]

1 hour ago, For Us All said:

Any evidence of that?

What do you think the donors to the brexit campaign are?  Working class folk working on factory floors?  Pathetic.

[Nofinikea 283]

Just now, Davebrad said:

because we've already voted once on this subject... if we have a second referendum/peoples vote where will it end, Keep to the original result or a precedent will be set. ie if you lost just cause as much mither, and you will get another chance... as it is from now on watch how many proposals in parliament get taken to court...

So even with the odds stacked hugely in favour of leave, you run scared of a second vote and hide behind democracy...  

Its exhausting trying to explain that democracy is also the ability to change your mind like we do every general election that is called.  It's as if folk are just brain washed.

[Nofinikea 283]

Also, there would have been no need for the courts to get involved had a minority government not been trying to circumvent parliament to push through there own agenda.

Dont blame the opposition, blame the behaviour of Boris and his idiot cronies and that goes right back to his leave campaign when they all blistered on about something they had no idea how to deliver.

[Davebrad 99]

2 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

So even with the odds stacked hugely in favour of leave, you run scared of a second vote and hide behind democracy...  

Its exhausting trying to explain that democracy is also the ability to change your mind like we do every general election that is called.  It's as if folk are just brain washed.

the only thing i'm scared about, is we have not implemented the result of the legitimate vote, we have the ability to change our minds that's a democracy as you say in a general election but we can't get a election

[Davebrad 99]

19 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Also, there would have been no need for the courts to get involved had a minority government not been trying to circumvent parliament to push through there own agenda.

Dont blame the opposition, blame the behaviour of Boris and his idiot cronies and that goes right back to his leave campaign when they all blistered on about something they had no idea how to deliver.

neither side knew what it would mean, but all parliament apart from 80 or so voted for article 50... that's when the mither started.

[Fosse69 483]

17 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

the only thing i'm scared about, is we have not implemented the result of the legitimate vote, we have the ability to change our minds that's a democracy as you say in a general election but we can't get a election

Cameron introduced the 5 year system to retain power not thinking it could be used to defer elections of the Government`s choosing.

[Fosse69 483]

6 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

neither side knew what it would mean, but all parliament apart from 80 or so voted for article 50... that's when the mither started.

Parliament  should have decided what Brexit meant and what deal was acceptable before article 50 was voted on, also the country should have been told then that there could be a point where Brexit was not practical for various reasons and would be revoked. This would have put the emphasis on what Brexit entailed and not a blind exit.

[Andyregs 197]

58 minutes ago, Davebrad said:

neither side knew what it would mean

Surely those who voted for, and campaigned to leave should have had an idea. 

[For Us All 319]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

As usual you just try and make smart arse comments rather than add anything to the debate.  I will treat you as the pathetic kid you come across as.

Looks like we have something in common then but at least I'm smart.

[geosname 578]

1 hour ago, Fosse69 said:

Cameron introduced the 5 year system to retain power not thinking it could be used to defer elections of the Government`s choosing.

Politicians eh.

[Jacko51 1,534]

8 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Looks like we have something in common then but at least I'm smart.

Self delusion.

[For Us All 319]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

Also, there would have been no need for the courts to get involved had a minority government not been trying to circumvent parliament to push through there own agenda.

Dont blame the opposition, blame the behaviour of Boris and his idiot cronies and that goes right back to his leave campaign when they all blistered on about something they had no idea how to deliver.

They were probably too busy promoting a No-Deal Brexit to help their hedge funding mates?

[geosname 578]

53 minutes ago, Fosse69 said:

Parliament  should have decided what Brexit meant and what deal was acceptable before article 50 was voted on, also the country should have been told then that there could be a point where Brexit was not practical for various reasons and would be revoked. This would have put the emphasis on what Brexit entailed and not a blind exit.

Parliament should have known what brexit entailed, found out the costs and consequences of enacting article 50, foreseen the problems with honouring the result before they did...... but brexit was a headline grabber and a vote catcher.

They shouldn't have asked the question.

[geosname 578]

19 minutes ago, Andyregs said:

Surely those who voted for, and campaigned to leave should have had an idea. 

If the remain campaign knew they would have highlighted it..... wouldn't they?

It would have been a bigger deterrent than the bus and claims of racism...... wouldn't it?

[Andyregs 197]

8 minutes ago, geosname said:

If the remain campaign knew they would have highlighted it..... wouldn't they?

It would have been a bigger deterrent than the bus and claims of racism...... wouldn't it?

Is that a joke. ‘Project fear’ was clear that leaving would be a disaster. Look back in what was posted on here. We said there would be a choice between a no deal and a bad deal. 

And what bus did the leave campaign use? 

Look at the last paragraph

Last page won’t scroll, but it’s says 

“A vote to leave is a vote for risk. Vote Leave say they’ll walk away from the single market and negotiate a new deal, but they can’t explain what it would be and how long it will take. The truth is if we left, the EU would not give us a better deal than they have for themselves. That means jobs aren’t safe, prices will rise, mortgages will be at risk, and funding for your local school or hospital will fall. It is a risk not worth taking. We can’t afford to leave the EU.”

Domt blame the ignorance of leave voters and campaigners on those who wanted to avoid it.

Edited October 20, 2019 by Andyregs

[Fosse69 483]

1 minute ago, geosname said:

Parliament should have known what brexit entailed, found out the costs and consequences of enacting article 50, foreseen the problems with honouring the result before they did...... but brexit was a headline grabber and a vote catcher.

They shouldn't have asked the question.

True, you never hold a referendum if you don't know the result.  

I have just read a comment on line, The EU is a system built up over 40 years to solve complex and detailed problems between nations, usually by compromise. Parliament is grappling with a binary problem now, and will have to grapple with the EU over trade, guess the winner.

[For Us All 319]

2 hours ago, Andyregs said:

Surely can’t complain when you don’t even know what you want yourself. 

It seems that the Remainers don't know what they want either.Up until Boris agreed a deal last week all they wanted was to prevent No Deal.

Another bunch of liars.

Labour MP Caroline Flint got it spot on yesterday when she said.

"This was a panic measure to reinsert  the 3-month delay for one reason only - to thwart a deal".