|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 21, 2018 17:34:12 GMT
So where I would see another vote being welcome maybe the result wouldn't be the turnaround that I'd welcome. I'd also like to know how many of the electorate would actually turn out this time. For similar reasons as Bob I'm against another vote as it's moving quite a way from democracy as we know it. Why? Or rather, how? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Nov 21, 2018 17:55:30 GMT
For similar reasons as Bob I'm against another vote as it's moving quite a way from democracy as we know it. Why? Or rather, how? On the one hand you can argue that now we know the facts, another referendum would be much more valid as the choices we all made during the previous one were based on which sides lies and opposition bashing you believed the most. However there are good many leave voters who believed in Brexit and still do and who are you to say they’re wrong just because the government made a right hash of the negotiations. I do think leave would win if we had another vote tomorrow but I don’t think it would be by much, in which case leavers would be well within their right to demand a third referendum. So we’d end up being even more divided and no closer to knowing what we all want and moving forward. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 21, 2018 19:24:51 GMT
For similar reasons as Bob I'm against another vote as it's moving quite a way from democracy as we know it. Why? Or rather, how? Because you can't keep sending the electorate away to vote again until they deliver the result you want. Unless you're the EU that is. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 21, 2018 20:00:36 GMT
For similar reasons as Bob I'm against another vote as it's moving quite a way from democracy as we know it. Why? Or rather, how? Because at the time we knew what we were voting for and we were told the decision was being handed over to the electorate. We were told the result would be enacted and it hasn’t been and as Bob says the idea that we should keep voting until we return the correct result is not democratic. As I’ve mentioned above a further vote would not be on the same terms (rebate, vetos, opt outs not to mention the deals Cameron secured around further integration) and so to be asked to vote again for no deal or even worse terms dressed up as remain would be unacceptable. |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 21, 2018 22:58:04 GMT
I’m against a vote for the same reason I was against the initial referendum: we have a parliament and those arseholes have been voted in, taken a salary and the kind of expenses and pension regime you and I would murder our neighbours for so they shouldn’t be asking the proletariat to decide on a single issue of any kind. Every MP in the house on the day of the referendum should forfeit their salary from that day. We as taxpayers vote these morons in, pay their salaries (which they increase at will) and pay for the building they sit in, the flat they live in in London and a constituency home to make these decisions after debating them and laying out their arguments in the chamber. That’s their job. You don’t get to the airport and have the Captain ask you if you’ve done the Check A or whether you think he or the first officer should do the take off so why are the people we’ve been schmoozed by into allowing them to run the parliamentary process asking us to make these kind of decisions?
I’ll accept a new referendum style vote on one basis only: do the people think the imposition of income tax should continue as it is or be abolished.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2018 2:21:30 GMT
Are you thinking of standing (or should that be sitting) for something? You make far too much sense for that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 22, 2018 9:55:23 GMT
I’m against a vote for the same reason I was against the initial referendum: we have a parliament and those arseholes have been voted in, taken a salary and the kind of expenses and pension regime you and I would murder our neighbours for so they shouldn’t be asking the proletariat to decide on a single issue of any kind. Every MP in the house on the day of the referendum should forfeit their salary from that day. We as taxpayers vote these morons in, pay their salaries (which they increase at will) and pay for the building they sit in, the flat they live in in London and a constituency home to make these decisions after debating them and laying out their arguments in the chamber. That’s their job. You don’t get to the airport and have the Captain ask you if you’ve done the Check A or whether you think he or the first officer should do the take off so why are the people we’ve been schmoozed by into allowing them to run the parliamentary process asking us to make these kind of decisions? I’ll accept a new referendum style vote on one basis only: do the people think the imposition of income tax should continue as it is or be abolished. Well put. I was also against the referendum - we either live in a representative parliamentary democracy or we sack the lot and just put everything to a vote through our smartphones. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 26, 2018 15:12:04 GMT
Because at the time we knew what we were voting for and we were told the decision was being handed over to the electorate. We were told the result would be enacted and it hasn’t been and as Bob says the idea that we should keep voting until we return the correct result is not democratic. As I’ve mentioned above a further vote would not be on the same terms (rebate, vetos, opt outs not to mention the deals Cameron secured around further integration) and so to be asked to vote again for no deal or even worse terms dressed up as remain would be unacceptable. Oh come off it. First, the jury is entirely out on whether we knew what we were voting for. The question may have been couched in clear terms but the implications of voting for Brexit were apparently clear to very few people. Secondly, this whole debate has shed light on the fact that many people have at best a very skewed idea of what democracy is and frequently mistake the tyranny of the majority for democracy. In particular, democracy is inherently not static. In a genuine democracy, a decision taken by one group of voters at one point in time can not and should never be treated as sacrosanct. So if you can have one referendum, you can have a second (or, rather, in this case, a third). If the voters haven’t changed their minds, then so be it. At least this time around no one can argue they didn’t have an opportunity to grasp the implications. So no, I don’t buy “democracy” as an argument. There are only two valid reasons to reject a second referendum: (1) because you are a Brexiteer and you worry that you will lose second time around or (2) because you are a Remainer, or at least not in favour of a hard Brexit, and you worry that a second win for Leave will result in a damaging hard Brexit. Thirdly, a second vote cannot be on the same terms. The first and second ones weren’t, so I see no valid arguments as to why any third should be so hamstrung. Putting all that aside however, at this point, if the choice is “hard Brexit” or “Mrs May’s Brexit”, then with nose held it’s the latter all the way because it will ultimately prove less damaging. But so far as I can tell, all “MMB” represents is effectively the status quo whereby we have traded all our influence and benefits (not to mention our global standing and reputation) for the right to control immigration. If that is not cutting off your nose to spite your face, then nothing is. I flew into City airport last night and noticed for the first time that it doesn’t say “Welcome to the UK”. It says “Welcome to the UK Border”. And I thought that was a very miserable way to greet people. Welcome to our miserable future. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 26, 2018 15:35:23 GMT
There's already people planning for a fourth referendum. This could run and run.
Surely the simplest thing for people wanting a third referendum (and the ensuing shit storm) is, at the next General Election, vote for the party that offers it, or better still declares it will take us back into the EU. That's democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 26, 2018 16:30:52 GMT
Thing is we had a kind of European referendum 100 years ago where Europe said to Germany: you do what we say. Didn't go well.
At the next physical referendum Europe AND the SU said to Germany: we're camping here to make sure you do what we say.
Then the SU had its own referendum where the various members states said: we're going this way.
Then some of those states said: we don't like this way and had another physical referendum.
History will tell us that the only thing certain is change. Not for better or worse. Just change.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 26, 2018 17:42:24 GMT
Because at the time we knew what we were voting for and we were told the decision was being handed over to the electorate. We were told the result would be enacted and it hasn’t been and as Bob says the idea that we should keep voting until we return the correct result is not democratic. As I’ve mentioned above a further vote would not be on the same terms (rebate, vetos, opt outs not to mention the deals Cameron secured around further integration) and so to be asked to vote again for no deal or even worse terms dressed up as remain would be unacceptable. Oh come off it. First, the jury is entirely out on whether we knew what we were voting for. The question may have been couched in clear terms but the implications of voting for Brexit were apparently clear to very few people. Secondly, this whole debate has shed light on the fact that many people have at best a very skewed idea of what democracy is and frequently mistake the tyranny of the majority for democracy. In particular, democracy is inherently not static. In a genuine democracy, a decision taken by one group of voters at one point in time can not and should never be treated as sacrosanct. So if you can have one referendum, you can have a second (or, rather, in this case, a third). If the voters haven’t changed their minds, then so be it. At least this time around no one can argue they didn’t have an opportunity to grasp the implications. So no, I don’t buy “democracy” as an argument. There are only two valid reasons to reject a second referendum: (1) because you are a Brexiteer and you worry that you will lose second time around or (2) because you are a Remainer, or at least not in favour of a hard Brexit, and you worry that a second win for Leave will result in a damaging hard Brexit. Thirdly, a second vote cannot be on the same terms. The first and second ones weren’t, so I see no valid arguments as to why any third should be so hamstrung. Putting all that aside however, at this point, if the choice is “hard Brexit” or “Mrs May’s Brexit”, then with nose held it’s the latter all the way because it will ultimately prove less damaging. But so far as I can tell, all “MMB” represents is effectively the status quo whereby we have traded all our influence and benefits (not to mention our global standing and reputation) for the right to control immigration. If that is not cutting off your nose to spite your face, then nothing is. I flew into City airport last night and noticed for the first time that it doesn’t say “Welcome to the UK”. It says “Welcome to the UK Border”. And I thought that was a very miserable way to greet people. Welcome to our miserable future. So, lets say we go down the second vote route, what do you propose the question would be? Given we would not be offered the terms we were on do you honestly think people are going to swing from leave to more Europe than before?
I disagree entirely with your statements as to why I would reject a second referendum. It is simply about democracy, if a decision is delegated to the people (ignoring the rightly or wrongly arguments) then the people should see that result delivered. Yes, people can change their minds and they do, but the result has to be enacted first.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Nov 26, 2018 18:47:01 GMT
Yes, people can change their minds and they do, but the result has to be enacted first.
I have to agree with Racing on this: the outcome, costs and ramifications of Brexit (hard, soft or MMB) were complete unknowns at the time of the first referendum, all buoyed up by completely inaccurate and impossible promises. I don't see any logical reason to refuse a second referendum before Brexit is enacted. To refuse another referendum until after Brexit has been enacted just cuts off one of the options which is currently open.
I am pretty sure that if the Article 50 notice was withdrawn, the UK could keep its current EU deal if that is what the electorate want. If not, then so be it.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 26, 2018 19:00:25 GMT
Yes, people can change their minds and they do, but the result has to be enacted first.
I have to agree with Racing on this: the outcome, costs and ramifications of Brexit (hard, soft or MMB) were complete unknowns at the time of the first referendum, all buoyed up by completely inaccurate and impossible promises. I don't see any logical reason to refuse a second referendum before Brexit is enacted. To refuse another referendum until after Brexit has been enacted just cuts off one of the options which is currently open.
I am pretty sure that if the Article 50 notice was withdrawn, the UK could keep its current EU deal if that is what the electorate want. If not, then so be it.
Exactly, suppose the referendum was to kill all first-borns and kill won first time around 52-48? Would we really have to kill all first-borns before running a second referendum to check whether we actually wanted to do it? I'm sorry but, in my view, that's a preposterous position to adopt.
If Art.50 was withdrawn, I think we would almost certainly have to kiss goodbye to Mrs Thatcher's hard-won rebate. And the genie would not go back into the bottle as regards loss of the EMA or of certain job sectors to various European financial capitals. But broadly speaking the rest of it would revert and certainly there's no suggestion that would include giving up sterling for the Euro or having to join Schengen.
And it would still be better than MMB, never mind HB.
This is all self-inflicted damage. Deny that if you wish, but it is a denial of the facts as they stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 26, 2018 20:14:42 GMT
So we have another vote and it’s hard Brexit or remain but without the rebate, greater integration and talk of a European army.
Leave would win by a bigger margin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 26, 2018 21:27:06 GMT
I have to agree with Racing on this: the outcome, costs and ramifications of Brexit (hard, soft or MMB) were complete unknowns at the time of the first referendum, all buoyed up by completely inaccurate and impossible promises. I don't see any logical reason to refuse a second referendum before Brexit is enacted. To refuse another referendum until after Brexit has been enacted just cuts off one of the options which is currently open.
I am pretty sure that if the Article 50 notice was withdrawn, the UK could keep its current EU deal if that is what the electorate want. If not, then so be it.
Exactly, suppose the referendum was to kill all first-borns and kill won first time around 52-48? Would we really have to kill all first-borns before running a second referendum to check whether we actually wanted to do it? I'm sorry but, in my view, that's a preposterous position to adopt.
If Art.50 was withdrawn, I think we would almost certainly have to kiss goodbye to Mrs Thatcher's hard-won rebate. And the genie would not go back into the bottle as regards loss of the EMA or of certain job sectors to various European financial capitals. But broadly speaking the rest of it would revert and certainly there's no suggestion that would include giving up sterling for the Euro or having to join Schengen.
And it would still be better than MMB, never mind HB.
This is all self-inflicted damage. Deny that if you wish, but it is a denial of the facts as they stand.
The equation of people voting to leave the EU with people voting for mass genocide. We really have reached new heights of hysteria. |
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Nov 27, 2018 9:41:25 GMT
Exactly, suppose the referendum was to kill all first-borns and kill won first time around 52-48? Would we really have to kill all first-borns before running a second referendum to check whether we actually wanted to do it? I'm sorry but, in my view, that's a preposterous position to adopt.
If Art.50 was withdrawn, I think we would almost certainly have to kiss goodbye to Mrs Thatcher's hard-won rebate. And the genie would not go back into the bottle as regards loss of the EMA or of certain job sectors to various European financial capitals. But broadly speaking the rest of it would revert and certainly there's no suggestion that would include giving up sterling for the Euro or having to join Schengen.
And it would still be better than MMB, never mind HB.
This is all self-inflicted damage. Deny that if you wish, but it is a denial of the facts as they stand.
The equation of people voting to leave the EU with people voting for mass genocide. We really have reached new heights of hysteria. Yup. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2018 13:49:28 GMT
I have no idea what level of cognition led to that, none at all. What if the referendum was to reduce the price of fish and chip suppers for the poor and needy? Would we want a second referendum on that too? Or hope that common sense is a possibility and this would not happen? How about we have a referendum on having a referendum that we have another referendum and accept two out of three? How about we just have simple system where those who vote for remaining get a say and nobody else does? Until we get to something they do not want at least? Wow, more hot air than a baked been kitchen, can we get some sense of reality please?
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 28, 2018 10:19:13 GMT
Exactly, suppose the referendum was to kill all first-borns and kill won first time around 52-48? Would we really have to kill all first-borns before running a second referendum to check whether we actually wanted to do it? I'm sorry but, in my view, that's a preposterous position to adopt.
If Art.50 was withdrawn, I think we would almost certainly have to kiss goodbye to Mrs Thatcher's hard-won rebate. And the genie would not go back into the bottle as regards loss of the EMA or of certain job sectors to various European financial capitals. But broadly speaking the rest of it would revert and certainly there's no suggestion that would include giving up sterling for the Euro or having to join Schengen.
And it would still be better than MMB, never mind HB.
This is all self-inflicted damage. Deny that if you wish, but it is a denial of the facts as they stand.
The equation of people voting to leave the EU with people voting for mass genocide. We really have reached new heights of hysteria. What an irrelevant remark! Of course I am exaggerating to make a point. But that is the response that suggests an absence of any meaningful counter-argument to my point. |
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 28, 2018 10:42:23 GMT
There isn't now enough time to enact a second vote but if there were, do you think 'remain' would win?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 28, 2018 11:16:12 GMT
There isn't now enough time to enact a second vote but if there were, do you think 'remain' would win?
Not decisively enough to put this to bed.
It's one of my bugbears that we have constantly been told the will of the people is to leave. Aye, a tiny majority of those who bothered to vote chose the leave option without knowing the slightest detail of what that might involve beyond some vague suggestion that the NHS would benefit to a clearly unrealistic financial degree.
A 2nd vote could possibly overturn that but unless it was in the order of 80:20 (unlikely) then we'd be justifiably deluged with demands from the likes of Farage to re-run it again.
Possibly the most irritating part of all of this is that it has entirely failed to address the problem that kicked it off in the first place, namely a split in the Conservative party. At the end of it all we're going to be left with a ruling party that is at opposite ends of a fundamental part of the nation's policy and decision making with little chance of them ever properly kissing and making up. Even if there is a temporary harmony post March there'll be something along again in a couple of years that'll set these useless arseholes off again - probably ongoing trade deal negotiations.
Really they should've split 30 years ago. At the very least more of them should've either gone off to join UKIP (as Europe seems to be their main focus) or more should've joined New Labour or the Limp Dems.
Any bets on the Tory party actually returning to be a cohesive party and being fit to actually govern at any point (same applies to Labour too)?
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 28, 2018 12:04:13 GMT
I wouldn't say 17 million was a tiny, that's a lot of people. The argument that it wasn't a 100% turnout almost assumes that everyone who didn't vote would have voted remain. I just don't agree the people didn't know what they were voting for, either. The news was full of doom, emergency budgets and economic chaos and people still voted for it.
The Tories are divided on it but so is the nation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Nov 28, 2018 12:17:00 GMT
We can't use turn-out as an excuse otherwise we'll never have had a valid election ever.
Whilst the initial Brexit campaigning was about fear of change and instability on one side and of fear of Brussels and the cost of funding foreign powers to govern us the actual behaviour witnessed since the vote by both sides would probably result in a leave landslide with hard-Brexit the preferred option. Brits are not known for their propensity to being bullied into or out of things by anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 28, 2018 12:51:38 GMT
There isn't now enough time to enact a second vote but if there were, do you think 'remain' would win? The only honest answer to that is "no idea".
I could guess that it would come in at Remain by a similarly slender margin as the original result.
And we all know what Nigel Farage said about the validity of a slender result....until he realised it was a slender result in his favour at which point it suddenly mutated at warp speed into the concrete Will of the People to stand for all time.
Such hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 28, 2018 13:02:05 GMT
The equation of people voting to leave the EU with people voting for mass genocide. We really have reached new heights of hysteria. What an irrelevant remark! Of course I am exaggerating to make a point. But that is the response that suggests an absence of any meaningful counter-argument to my point. Racing, you made a daft comment - and I think you know that from your response - it was a poor straw man argument. I find myself stuck in the middle between the arrogance and condescension of the hard line Remainers and naivety of the pro Brexiteers. You stated with certainty that there could be only two valid reasons for not having having a second vote which was, of course, nonsense. For example, I'll give you a third reason for not wanting another vote: 3. You never wanted a referendum and didn't want to leave the EU. Now the votes have been cast the genie is out of the bottle. Another vote would only result in another 12 months of argument and counter argument - and if you thought it got bitter last time you haven't seen anything yet. The divisions within this country would only intensify and leave millions of people feeling disenfranchised - and for what? Whatever the result would only add further fuel for yet another vote. The Britain within the EU model is broken, we can't have another vote and hope to piece it back together again, we need to make a new model, whatever that may be. I don't think it will be as a good as what we had as part of the EU short to medium term, but it's got to be better than going back, cap in hand, and begging to be let back in saying we've made a terrible mistake. The EU would then really have us by the balls and we would forever be subject to ridicule by the other members. I'm not in favour of a vote for that. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 28, 2018 13:02:24 GMT
I wouldn't say 17 million was a tiny, that's a lot of people. The argument that it wasn't a 100% turnout almost assumes that everyone who didn't vote would have voted remain. I just don't agree the people didn't know what they were voting for, either. The news was full of doom, emergency budgets and economic chaos and people still voted for it. The Tories are divided on it but so is the nation. Well we will have to disagree on the point about whether people understood the consequences of their voting choice.
But can we at least agree that a process which means swapping Britain's hitherto "semi-detached" membership of the EU for MMB is just, objectively, bonkers to anyone who isn't obsessed with immigration?
I just don't see how MMB represents any kind of net win for this country.
But on balance, in the cold hard light of day at this juncture, I think it is better than hard Brexit because just about anything is better than hard Brexit.
17 million people are quite capable of collectively being completely wrong. And secondly, there is absolutely no evidence that all 17 million wanted or continue to want a hard Brexit.
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Nov 28, 2018 13:14:28 GMT
What an irrelevant remark! Of course I am exaggerating to make a point. But that is the response that suggests an absence of any meaningful counter-argument to my point. Racing, you made a daft comment - and I think you know that from your response - it was a poor straw man argument. I find myself stuck in the middle between the arrogance and condescension of the hard line Remainers and naivety of the pro Brexiteers. You stated with certainty that there could be only two valid reasons for not having having a second vote which was, of course, nonsense. For example, I'll give you a third reason for not wanting another vote: 3. You never wanted a referendum and didn't want to leave the EU. Now the votes have been cast the genie is out of the bottle. Another vote would only result in another 12 months of argument and counter argument - and if you thought it got bitter last time you haven't seen anything yet. The divisions within this country would only intensify and leave millions of people feeling disenfranchised - and for what? Whatever the result would only add further fuel for yet another vote. The Britain within the EU model is broken, we can't have another vote and hope to piece it back together again, we need to make a new model, whatever that may be. I don't think it will be as a good as what we had as part of the EU short to medium term, but it's got to be better than going back, cap in hand, and begging to be let back in saying we've made a terrible mistake. The EU would then really have us by the balls and we would forever be subject to ridicule by the other members. I'm not in favour of a vote for that.
It was not remotely a straw man or daft in my view. I was illustrating a point, which point by the way still stands. There is a major difference.
And please find the moment in this entire thread where I have advocated another referendum. I haven't. I simply took issue with what I see as wrong-headed comments around democracy etc.
It's not at all clear whether another referendum is the answer. I for one have no idea how you'd need (or even be able) to phrase the question in order to get a true and fair result.
But to pick out one remark you make, I see everyone worrying about millions of Brexit voters feeling disenfranchised whilst simultaneously apparently being completely unworried about the millions of Remain voters who already feel disenfranchised. Are we to be second-class citizens because we don't believe in the Brexit fantasy? 700,000 people marched through London against Brexit and by lunchtime the following day it wasn't even featuring in the headlines on the BBC's app.
And to be honest I think MMB represents a pretty hard yank on our bollocks by the EU and the less said about the ridicule we've already heaped on ourselves the better.
|
|
|
|
Post by michael on Nov 28, 2018 13:26:13 GMT
It's all speculation as to what people thought they were voting for. All I know is that I saw the doom headlines, the talk of the border in Ireland and the issues of the customs union etc. I can't therefore assume that those who voted leave didn't. Both Labour and Conservatives said they'd respect the referendum result in their manifestos and between them they got the vast majority of the votes. You could even argue that the majority knew what they were voting for when they elected Cameron who had said he'd hold the vote in the first place.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Nov 28, 2018 13:37:26 GMT
I wouldn't say 17 million was a tiny, that's a lot of people. The argument that it wasn't a 100% turnout almost assumes that everyone who didn't vote would have voted remain. I just don't agree the people didn't know what they were voting for, either. The news was full of doom, emergency budgets and economic chaos and people still voted for it. The Tories are divided on it but so is the nation.
I said the majority was tiny, not the number of people who voted to leave.
I don't exepct a full turnout either, that's never happened in history and its not going to in the future.
As for people knowing what they voted for, well I reckon they had some vague ideas but I really wonder how many people are going to worse off due to us leaving than would've been if we stayed and they'll be quick to complain even if its partly as a result of them voting to leave. Don't forget that a lot of UK businesses are foreign owned and if there's a global contraction - possible in light of US vs China trade wars - those foreign owners are certainly going to look even closer at saving costs/making cuts overseas (i.e. here) before they do it at home.
But its all ok because Boris, Michale Gove and Farage all told us there'll be an extra £350M a week going into the NHS. That'll have to fund the medicare robots we're going to need when all the Europeans go back to their own countries and the immigration policy refuses to look at anyone coming to a job paying less than £50k.....
|
|
|
|
Post by ChrisM on Nov 28, 2018 13:45:30 GMT
It's all speculation as to what people thought they were voting for. I don't think that anyone who voted "leave" could fully have known what the consequences were since nobody in authority appears to have looked into it. Cars (whole or parts), medical devices, medicines, fresh food, other perishable and non-perishable food, livestock, border crossings by non-UK nationals in both directions, financial services, data services etc etc.... there's a simple list just off the top of my head of things that needed to be seriously considered yet even now, we don't appear to have full information on how these are likely to be affected after the "divorce" |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Nov 28, 2018 14:29:46 GMT
Racing, you made a daft comment - and I think you know that from your response - it was a poor straw man argument. I find myself stuck in the middle between the arrogance and condescension of the hard line Remainers and naivety of the pro Brexiteers. You stated with certainty that there could be only two valid reasons for not having having a second vote which was, of course, nonsense. For example, I'll give you a third reason for not wanting another vote: 3. You never wanted a referendum and didn't want to leave the EU. Now the votes have been cast the genie is out of the bottle. Another vote would only result in another 12 months of argument and counter argument - and if you thought it got bitter last time you haven't seen anything yet. The divisions within this country would only intensify and leave millions of people feeling disenfranchised - and for what? Whatever the result would only add further fuel for yet another vote. The Britain within the EU model is broken, we can't have another vote and hope to piece it back together again, we need to make a new model, whatever that may be. I don't think it will be as a good as what we had as part of the EU short to medium term, but it's got to be better than going back, cap in hand, and begging to be let back in saying we've made a terrible mistake. The EU would then really have us by the balls and we would forever be subject to ridicule by the other members. I'm not in favour of a vote for that.
But to pick out one remark you make, I see everyone worrying about millions of Brexit voters feeling disenfranchised whilst simultaneously apparently being completely unworried about the millions of Remain voters who already feel disenfranchised. Are we to be second-class citizens because we don't believe in the Brexit fantasy? 700,000 people marched through London against Brexit and by lunchtime the following day it wasn't even featuring in the headlines on the BBC's app.
And to be honest I think MMB represents a pretty hard yank on our bollocks by the EU and the less said about the ridicule we've already heaped on ourselves the better.
Way to completely miss the point - who said anything about it being Brexit voters feeling disenfranchised? What's your alternative - a grovelling apology and beg forgiveness? |
|
