Brexit again...

[Fosse69]

2 minutes ago, For Us All said:

I think most of the MP's know the answer to that one.

Turkey's (and chicken's) don't vote for Christmas?

Why ruin Xmas with any sort of election or referendum?

[Regal Beagle]

On 26/10/2019 at 17:34, Paul6754 said:

Because  it's the right and most sensible thing to do rather than gamble with the future of the vast majority of people in the UK and indeed the Union itself.

Rule Britannia doesn't Rule the waves and hasn't done for a long, long time and when you wake up to this reality it will be too late, the damage will have been done.

Doesn't answer the question.

I didn't expect you to have an answer to be fair because there isn't one.

 

Short of saying that you believe brexiteers are more fair, honest, decent and democratic than remainers.

 

We won't forget what the political class has done to us. There's a reason they will avoid an election at all costs and it has nothing to do with taking no deal off the table.

[tommytunstall]

7 hours ago, Davebrad said:

how about a straight leave or remain vote, if its leave then the arses in parliament do what we tell them... if its remain we then have marches, protests, petitions, court cases, oh wait...

There is a massive difference to leaving with a deal or leaving without one.

[geosname]

7 hours ago, Nofinikea said:

Are you really expecting any remain voters to chose No Deal in the event of Leave winning?  For No Deal to win, almost all leavers would have to prefer a no deal Brexit for that to be the winning choice.  

Remain would win now anyway, hands down.  It's why Leavers are so scared of a 2nd referendum otherwise they would lap it up just to prove themselves superior and rub it in.

I'm not expecting anyone to win before the decision is made. Simply trying to include everyone's choices in the deal no deal option.

The object of the exercise isn't simply to win, that's part of what went wrong with the first referendum, it also has to try to eliminate the arguments after the win, on both sides, so we move forward.

I would prefer remain to win but not if the odds are stacked to make it win.

[geosname]

6 hours ago, Andyregs said:

I’m sorry you’re either totally not understanding it twisting things beyond comprehension. This idea of second bite at the cherry is pure nonsense. Their votes do count on the second round, their vote just remains as what it was and is taken forward. Why would they want it changed for their second option. You’ve talked yourself into arguing against the very thing you were concerned about originally because you can’t help yourself. 

If the initial question is REMAIN, DEAL, NO DEAL only remain can win.... you said if there was a clear winner it stops there..... what's the chance of deal winning?..... or no deal winning?..... zero?... The arguments begin again.

If you count the deal, no deal votes together why split them in the first place?

If there is no decisive majority (to stop further argument) we go to option 2 and eliminate the option with the least votes...... deal or no deal? (Because neither can win the first unless counted together)..... let's say no deal is illiminated.... the chances are no deal voters choose deal as a second option.... we are back to no decisive majority.... the arguments continue.

Let's think the unthinkable..... the no deal votes collectively win the second question, with a majority...... have remainers had a say on deal or no deal? Will the arguments stop if their second choice isn't counted?

Realistically.......

Leave 15M...... no deal 8M...... deal 8.1M.... no deal eliminated, their second choice used.

Leave 15M..... deal 16.1M... would the arguments cease? Claims and counterclaims stop? remainers accept the decision? If the numbers were reversed would leavers suck it up?

If a minimum % vote was applied we would probably still be stuck in limbo.

The only major difference in what I suggested compared to what you suggested is clarity and everyone gets to decide how we leave if leave win. It wouldn't quell the disquiet completely but it would eliminate some of the arguing points.

The leave remain question would probably be close, as the last was, but I think the deal or no deal answer would be overwhelming.

[Andyregs]

12 hours ago, For Us All said:

Why should anyone respect the result of another referendum when they haven't respected the result of the last one?

Why should anyone respect your opinion on this when apparently you don’t have one.

[geosname]

12 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

Well let's have a ballot with 100 options on then, even though only 2 are possible...  whoooshhhh as per.

I suggested 2 you Muppet...... leave or remain.

The secondary question was to decide how to leave if leave won..... which is one of the main remainers arguments.... "No one voted for no deal"

[colin]

17 hours ago, For Us All said:

I think most of the MP's know the answer to that one.

Turkey's (and chicken's) don't vote for Christmas?

I think the 2016 referendum has shown us that many Turkeys do vote for Christmas.

[Tomo]

Yet another extension, to 31st Jan.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-50205603

 

An early election would definitely throw it all up in the air again though...

[For Us All]

5 hours ago, Andyregs said:

Why should anyone respect your opinion on this when apparently you don’t have one.

Nobody has to,they don't count opinions after a referendum just votes.

The problem all along has been that the losers have never accepted defeat,which will have consequences in future elections.

Keep trying though.

[For Us All]

1 hour ago, colin said:

I think the 2016 referendum has shown us that many Turkeys do vote for Christmas.

And that the chickens are all losers.

[Fosse69]

8 minutes ago, For Us All said:

Nobody has to,they don't count opinions after a referendum just votes.

The problem all along has been that the losers have never accepted defeat,which will have consequences in future elections.

Keep trying though.

The Government were given a 6 months extension to get it sorted, so they pratted about changing leaders until the Summer Hols, then when they came back set out to minimise parliamentary time. Didn't bother going for a deal into the last few weeks then gave insufficient time for the bill to be discussed, all after a request to use the time wisely. Not their fault of course. Time to blame the winners for a change.

[Fosse69]

19 hours ago, Davebrad said:

why not a election? we've got to have one soon anyway because this parliaments dead, it saves money 1 election or 2nd referendum and election...

Don't think money is the problem money is being spent like water, no wonder there are floods.

[geosname]

38 minutes ago, Nofinikea said:

But the "winners" are stupid so the losers have got to fight stupid for the good of future generations that selfish retired people chose to take away from there grandkids.

 

[For Us All]

1 hour ago, Nofinikea said:

But the "winners" are stupid so the losers have got to fight stupid for the good of future generations that selfish retired people chose to take away from there grandkids.

I rest my case.