.dappy
Full Member
🗨️ 9,841
👍🏻 9,462
December 2010
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 2:30:46 GMT 1
via mobile
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 7:46:06 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Mar 28, 2019 7:46:06 GMT 1, You have to followthrough with the outcome of the first vote. Democracy doesn’t include a do over concept
You have to followthrough with the outcome of the first vote. Democracy doesn’t include a do over concept |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 9:55:13 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 9:55:13 GMT 1,
Tonight's votes are what should have happened before triggering Article 50. It would have then been realised that there was no majority for any form of Brexit, and notification could have been postponed until such time as a majority was found for a proposal.
Common sense really you would think?
Would have saved 2 years of pain and a few billion instead of the ineptitude we currently have steering our country and childrens future
Tonight's votes are what should have happened before triggering Article 50. It would have then been realised that there was no majority for any form of Brexit, and notification could have been postponed until such time as a majority was found for a proposal. Common sense really you would think? Would have saved 2 years of pain and a few billion instead of the ineptitude we currently have steering our country and childrens future |
|
jamo
New Member
🗨️ 594
👍🏻 623
June 2008
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 10:20:46 GMT 1
Brexit, by jamo on Mar 28, 2019 10:20:46 GMT 1,
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 10:22:43 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 28, 2019 10:22:43 GMT 1,
Tonight's votes are what should have happened before triggering Article 50. It would have then been realised that there was no majority for any form of Brexit, and notification could have been postponed until such time as a majority was found for a proposal. Common sense really you would think? Would have saved 2 years of pain and a few billion instead of the ineptitude we currently have steering our country and childrens future
Tonight's votes are what should have happened before triggering Article 50. It would have then been realised that there was no majority for any form of Brexit, and notification could have been postponed until such time as a majority was found for a proposal. Common sense really you would think? Would have saved 2 years of pain and a few billion instead of the ineptitude we currently have steering our country and childrens future And to think, it was Mays big plan to force trigger article 50 before sorting anything, so that she could "force their hand". Well, that went well! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:33:06 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:33:06 GMT 1, For me the argument is no longer about the reasons for Brexit. That has been settled by the vote. It is the reversal from the vote that is worrying. Undemocratic, while some remainers now relish this, I hope they look into the far term, politicians may go against them too in the future on a different vote. A very bad precedent this is setting. IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying.
Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all?
For me the argument is no longer about the reasons for Brexit. That has been settled by the vote. It is the reversal from the vote that is worrying. Undemocratic, while some remainers now relish this, I hope they look into the far term, politicians may go against them too in the future on a different vote. A very bad precedent this is setting. IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? |
|
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:45:33 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 28, 2019 11:45:33 GMT 1, IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all?
IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:45:42 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:45:42 GMT 1, Even if it no longer reflects the “will of the people”? What if the polls said that 75% now want to remain? Press on regardless? It still seems to me that having a confirmatory vote, once the true options are known, is completely democratic, especially as the original vote was nearly 3 years ago. The referendum was also not legally binding, has been been proved to be corrupt, further evidence shows what a terrible idea it is and democracy isn’t about one course of action - that’s a dictatorship innit.
Even if it no longer reflects the “will of the people”? What if the polls said that 75% now want to remain? Press on regardless? It still seems to me that having a confirmatory vote, once the true options are known, is completely democratic, especially as the original vote was nearly 3 years ago. The referendum was also not legally binding, has been been proved to be corrupt, further evidence shows what a terrible idea it is and democracy isn’t about one course of action - that’s a dictatorship innit. Democracy applies to terrible ideas just as it applies to good ideas. Likewise, democracy applies to all types of people. The votes of Mr. and Mrs. Bonkers have equal worth to the votes of Mr. and Mrs. Thoughtful-intellectual. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:49:00 GMT 1
Brexit, by streetartger on Mar 28, 2019 11:49:00 GMT 1, IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all?
Let’s look at the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon EU treaty. This vote in June 2008 resulted in a decisive defeat for the EU treaty. In a turnout of 53%, 53% voted no, which was a major shock to the government and main opposition parties which had decisively endorsed the treaty. In October 2009 the Irish electorate voted again and returned a very different result. With turnout of 58%, 67% of voters voted yes and just two of the country’s 43 electoral constituencies voted no. A majority of men and women of all age groups and socioeconomic classes endorsed the treaty.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/second-brexit-referendum-ireland-lisbon-polls
IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Happened before... maybe not in the UK but in Ireland & Denmark: Let’s look at the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon EU treaty. This vote in June 2008 resulted in a decisive defeat for the EU treaty. In a turnout of 53%, 53% voted no, which was a major shock to the government and main opposition parties which had decisively endorsed the treaty. In October 2009 the Irish electorate voted again and returned a very different result. With turnout of 58%, 67% of voters voted yes and just two of the country’s 43 electoral constituencies voted no. A majority of men and women of all age groups and socioeconomic classes endorsed the treaty. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/second-brexit-referendum-ireland-lisbon-polls |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:53:24 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 11:53:24 GMT 1, So, as I suspected, MPs don't want any of the options.
So what happens now? Do we simply crash out with no deal?
So, as I suspected, MPs don't want any of the options. So what happens now? Do we simply crash out with no deal? |
|
k2
New Member
🗨️ 528
👍🏻 972
November 2016
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 11:59:16 GMT 1
Brexit, by k2 on Mar 28, 2019 11:59:16 GMT 1, The referendum was also not legally binding, has been been proved to be corrupt, further evidence shows what a terrible idea it is and democracy isn’t about one course of action - that’s a dictatorship innit. Democracy applies to terrible ideas just as it applies to good ideas. Likewise, democracy applies to all types of people. The votes of Mr. and Mrs. Bonkers have equal worth to the votes of Mr. and Mrs. Thoughtful-intellectual.
Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented?
(Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote)
The referendum was also not legally binding, has been been proved to be corrupt, further evidence shows what a terrible idea it is and democracy isn’t about one course of action - that’s a dictatorship innit. Democracy applies to terrible ideas just as it applies to good ideas. Likewise, democracy applies to all types of people. The votes of Mr. and Mrs. Bonkers have equal worth to the votes of Mr. and Mrs. Thoughtful-intellectual. I remember you saying that you were a Remain voter, but now you feel strongly that the result should be respected. Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented? (Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote) |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:00:07 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:00:07 GMT 1, Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word.
Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic? |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:05:18 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:05:18 GMT 1, Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Happened before... maybe not in the UK but in Ireland & Denmark: Let’s look at the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon EU treaty. This vote in June 2008 resulted in a decisive defeat for the EU treaty. In a turnout of 53%, 53% voted no, which was a major shock to the government and main opposition parties which had decisively endorsed the treaty. In October 2009 the Irish electorate voted again and returned a very different result. With turnout of 58%, 67% of voters voted yes and just two of the country’s 43 electoral constituencies voted no. A majority of men and women of all age groups and socioeconomic classes endorsed the treaty. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/second-brexit-referendum-ireland-lisbon-polls
Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Happened before... maybe not in the UK but in Ireland & Denmark: Let’s look at the second Irish referendum on the Lisbon EU treaty. This vote in June 2008 resulted in a decisive defeat for the EU treaty. In a turnout of 53%, 53% voted no, which was a major shock to the government and main opposition parties which had decisively endorsed the treaty. In October 2009 the Irish electorate voted again and returned a very different result. With turnout of 58%, 67% of voters voted yes and just two of the country’s 43 electoral constituencies voted no. A majority of men and women of all age groups and socioeconomic classes endorsed the treaty. www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/11/second-brexit-referendum-ireland-lisbon-pollsThanks. But in that particular case, the outcome of the first referendum was acted upon. |
|
k2
New Member
🗨️ 528
👍🏻 972
November 2016
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:10:26 GMT 1
Brexit, by k2 on Mar 28, 2019 12:10:26 GMT 1, Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic?
An example of this would be 1974. The general election in February resulted in a hung parliament. Various attempts to form a coalition government failed, resulting in a Labour minority government led by Harold Wilson. With no working majority, and therefore no stability in the house, the vote went back to the people in October. This time the election yielded a small Labour majority allowing business to continue.
That's not undemocratic, it's exactly the opposite.
Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic? It's not necessarily a case of the result being wrong, but if there's no consensus in the house then the next step should be to go back to the people. An example of this would be 1974. The general election in February resulted in a hung parliament. Various attempts to form a coalition government failed, resulting in a Labour minority government led by Harold Wilson. With no working majority, and therefore no stability in the house, the vote went back to the people in October. This time the election yielded a small Labour majority allowing business to continue. That's not undemocratic, it's exactly the opposite. |
|
|
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:14:52 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 28, 2019 12:14:52 GMT 1, Democracy applies to terrible ideas just as it applies to good ideas. Likewise, democracy applies to all types of people. The votes of Mr. and Mrs. Bonkers have equal worth to the votes of Mr. and Mrs. Thoughtful-intellectual. I remember you saying that you were a Remain voter, but now you feel strongly that the result should be respected. Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented? (Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote)
Be careful what you wish for.
Democracy applies to terrible ideas just as it applies to good ideas. Likewise, democracy applies to all types of people. The votes of Mr. and Mrs. Bonkers have equal worth to the votes of Mr. and Mrs. Thoughtful-intellectual. I remember you saying that you were a Remain voter, but now you feel strongly that the result should be respected. Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented? (Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote) That's a good question. I would probably abstain. I feel a second referendum with a 'Remain' majority would have untold consequences which would reverberate much further than just the EU question. At best, leave voters would probably turn their backs on democracy and not bother to vote ever again. At worst, there will be riots in the street, looting, buildings set on fire, and another murdered MP like Jo Cox. Be careful what you wish for. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:21:01 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Mar 28, 2019 12:21:01 GMT 1, IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all?
Just in case you missed it.
I'm not really down with the 'going ahead anyway and eating the human s**t thing', before then deciding to go somewhere else next time.
IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? Just in case you missed it. I'm not really down with the 'going ahead anyway and eating the human s**t thing', before then deciding to go somewhere else next time. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:24:31 GMT 1
via mobile
Brexit, by Coach on Mar 28, 2019 12:24:31 GMT 1, IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all?
In principle what you say makes sense. However in this particular case, if having left we ask to join again, we would loose all the favourable terms that we have negotiated over the years, not least our significant rebate.
IT IS NOT UNDEMOCRATIC TO HAVE A SECOND VOTE. Stop trying to subvert the meanings of words!! Its f**kingannoying. Whilst it's true to say it is not undemocratic to have a second vote at a later date; I can't help thinking that it *is* undemocratic to have a second vote before the first vote has been acted upon. Has this ever happened in the past? On any issue at all? In principle what you say makes sense. However in this particular case, if having left we ask to join again, we would loose all the favourable terms that we have negotiated over the years, not least our significant rebate. |
|
k2
New Member
🗨️ 528
👍🏻 972
November 2016
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:27:51 GMT 1
Brexit, by k2 on Mar 28, 2019 12:27:51 GMT 1, I remember you saying that you were a Remain voter, but now you feel strongly that the result should be respected. Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented? (Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote) That's a good question. I would probably abstain. I feel a second referendum with a 'Remain' majority would have untold consequences which would reverberate much further than just the EU question. At best, leave voters would probably turn their backs on democracy and not bother to vote ever again. At worst, there will be riots in the street, looting, buildings set on fire, and another murdered MP like Jo Cox. Be careful what you wish for.
* New question put to the people - some kind of realistic exit deal (or even 'no deal') vs remain
* Public votes for the realistic exit deal (or no deal)
That way the remain voters asking for a second referendum on the basis that the first was based on lies, assumptions, or impracticalities are no longer able to make that argument. And those who voted leave the first time around wouldn't feel cheated.
That wouldn't be the outcome that I'd choose, but I'd be happy to accept it.
If we leave with a deal (or no deal) without a confirmatory vote at this stage, or have a second referendum that yields a Remain vote, either way I agree that there will be a significant proportion of the public who will feel genuinely aggrieved by the outcome. And either way it will be extremely divisive and ugly.
I remember you saying that you were a Remain voter, but now you feel strongly that the result should be respected. Out of interest, if there was a second referendum, do you think you would vote to Remain once again? Or would you vote to Leave, despite what you feel might be best for the country, because you feel so strongly that the first decision should be implemented? (Not a trick question in any way, and no judgement. Just curious how someone in that position might choose to respond to a second vote) That's a good question. I would probably abstain. I feel a second referendum with a 'Remain' majority would have untold consequences which would reverberate much further than just the EU question. At best, leave voters would probably turn their backs on democracy and not bother to vote ever again. At worst, there will be riots in the street, looting, buildings set on fire, and another murdered MP like Jo Cox. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me that the only way that this could be resolved without anyone having cause for complaint at the end would be: * New question put to the people - some kind of realistic exit deal (or even 'no deal') vs remain * Public votes for the realistic exit deal (or no deal) That way the remain voters asking for a second referendum on the basis that the first was based on lies, assumptions, or impracticalities are no longer able to make that argument. And those who voted leave the first time around wouldn't feel cheated. That wouldn't be the outcome that I'd choose, but I'd be happy to accept it. If we leave with a deal (or no deal) without a confirmatory vote at this stage, or have a second referendum that yields a Remain vote, either way I agree that there will be a significant proportion of the public who will feel genuinely aggrieved by the outcome. And either way it will be extremely divisive and ugly. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 12:42:01 GMT 1
Brexit, by Daylight Robber on Mar 28, 2019 12:42:01 GMT 1, That's a good question. I would probably abstain. I feel a second referendum with a 'Remain' majority would have untold consequences which would reverberate much further than just the EU question. At best, leave voters would probably turn their backs on democracy and not bother to vote ever again. At worst, there will be riots in the street, looting, buildings set on fire, and another murdered MP like Jo Cox. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me that the only way that this could be resolved without anyone having cause for complaint at the end would be: * New question put to the people - some kind of realistic exit deal (or even 'no deal') vs remain * Public votes for the realistic exit deal (or no deal) That way the remain voters asking for a second referendum on the basis that the first was based on lies, assumptions, or impracticalities are no longer able to make that argument. And those who voted leave the first time around wouldn't feel cheated. That wouldn't be the outcome that I'd choose, but I'd be happy to accept it. If we leave with a deal (or no deal) without a confirmatory vote at this stage, or have a second referendum that yields a Remain vote, either way I agree that there will be a significant proportion of the public who will feel genuinely aggrieved by the outcome. And either way it will be extremely divisive and ugly.
It is very telling that +1m people on one side can demonstrate without causing any trouble, yet every time a small group of neon nazi's, in their European Inspired yellow vests, get together to abuse and intimidate the other side, they end up getting themselves arrested.
That's a good question. I would probably abstain. I feel a second referendum with a 'Remain' majority would have untold consequences which would reverberate much further than just the EU question. At best, leave voters would probably turn their backs on democracy and not bother to vote ever again. At worst, there will be riots in the street, looting, buildings set on fire, and another murdered MP like Jo Cox. Be careful what you wish for. It seems to me that the only way that this could be resolved without anyone having cause for complaint at the end would be: * New question put to the people - some kind of realistic exit deal (or even 'no deal') vs remain * Public votes for the realistic exit deal (or no deal) That way the remain voters asking for a second referendum on the basis that the first was based on lies, assumptions, or impracticalities are no longer able to make that argument. And those who voted leave the first time around wouldn't feel cheated. That wouldn't be the outcome that I'd choose, but I'd be happy to accept it. If we leave with a deal (or no deal) without a confirmatory vote at this stage, or have a second referendum that yields a Remain vote, either way I agree that there will be a significant proportion of the public who will feel genuinely aggrieved by the outcome. And either way it will be extremely divisive and ugly. Its already divisive and ugly. Politicians should be doing what is best for the country across the board. If there's any unrest, they should deal with it appropriately. They shouldn't be scared/bullied into voting for something which wrecks the economy and negatively impacts on health provision and security etc. It is very telling that +1m people on one side can demonstrate without causing any trouble, yet every time a small group of neon nazi's, in their European Inspired yellow vests, get together to abuse and intimidate the other side, they end up getting themselves arrested. |
|
love
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,649
👍🏻 391
October 2009
|
Brexit
Mar 28, 2019 18:25:06 GMT 1
Brexit, by love on Mar 28, 2019 18:25:06 GMT 1,
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:10:58 GMT 1
Brexit, by Schrödinger's Chat on Mar 29, 2019 11:10:58 GMT 1, Hi Folks, I have a job lot of badges I need to get rid off, taking offers.
Hi Folks, I have a job lot of badges I need to get rid off, taking offers. |
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:14:13 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 29, 2019 11:14:13 GMT 1, Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic?
Its literally not possible to be undemocratic by going back to the people. Doesnt really matter what you think, thats just how it is. Precedence doesnt mean a thing here, its irrelevant to the definition of a word. So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic? You mean like the one May called in 2017? |
|
|
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:17:23 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 29, 2019 11:17:23 GMT 1, Hi Folks, I have a job lot of badges I need to get rid off, taking offers.
Hi Folks, I have a job lot of badges I need to get rid off, taking offers. News just said someone spent 100k+ on t shirts. They are now trying to get shot at 50p each. A tad shy of the 40 quid each they were planning for!!! |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:36:34 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 11:36:34 GMT 1, So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic? You mean like the one May called in 2017?
But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented.
So if we had a general election tomorrow, would we be able to have another general election next month if we end up with the 'wrong' result? Would you think that is also democratic? You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:45:19 GMT 1
Brexit, by Happy Shopper on Mar 29, 2019 11:45:19 GMT 1, You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented.
What if the promises of what we'd get by leaving couldn't be implemented?
Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement?
You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. What if the promises of what we'd get by leaving couldn't be implemented? Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement? |
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 11:53:01 GMT 1
Brexit, by Dive Jedi on Mar 29, 2019 11:53:01 GMT 1, You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented.
You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. You are turning into the Murrke of implementation….. |
|
Deleted
🗨️ 0
👍🏻
January 1970
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 12:01:10 GMT 1
Brexit, by Deleted on Mar 29, 2019 12:01:10 GMT 1, I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. What if the promises of what we'd get by leaving couldn't be implemented? Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement?
Then we could have another EU referendum at that time. But we haven't got to that stage yet, have we?
"Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement?"
The Northern Ireland question is an interesting one. The DUP are digging in their heels and saying 'no' to every deal that comes up but, ironically, by refusing to accept a deal they are making a no-deal almost inevitable. And a no-deal will absolutely result in a hard border between Ireland and N.I. A proposition they fear the most. The DUP are playing with fire and are going to get burned.
I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. What if the promises of what we'd get by leaving couldn't be implemented? Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement? "What if the promises of what we'd get by leaving couldn't be implemented?" Then we could have another EU referendum at that time. But we haven't got to that stage yet, have we? "Or, Brexit literally couldn't be implemented because of the Northern Ireland border and Good Friday Agreement?" The Northern Ireland question is an interesting one. The DUP are digging in their heels and saying 'no' to every deal that comes up but, ironically, by refusing to accept a deal they are making a no-deal almost inevitable. And a no-deal will absolutely result in a hard border between Ireland and N.I. A proposition they fear the most. The DUP are playing with fire and are going to get burned. |
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 12:02:11 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 29, 2019 12:02:11 GMT 1, You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented.
Not sure why you are jumping on the idea i didnt answer anyway, ive lost count of the things you have chosen to ignore as you have no answer!
You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. Your question was loaded as ever, so negated any point it may have had. Are multiple elections undemocratic, no they are not, if they are needed they are needed. Nothing undemocratic about going back to the people. Not sure why you are jumping on the idea i didnt answer anyway, ive lost count of the things you have chosen to ignore as you have no answer! |
|
rebate
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,050
👍🏻 961
January 2018
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 12:03:01 GMT 1
Brexit, by rebate on Mar 29, 2019 12:03:01 GMT 1, You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented.
You mean like the one May called in 2017? I see you haven't answered my question. But regarding the Theresa May election of 2017 (and the one before that, and the one before that) I seem to remember that the result was implemented so that doesn't really equate with a second EU referendum where the first referendum was not implemented. Happy not brexit day by the way. |
|
dogstar
New Member
🗨️ 665
👍🏻 811
October 2017
|
Brexit
Mar 29, 2019 12:04:35 GMT 1
Brexit, by dogstar on Mar 29, 2019 12:04:35 GMT 1, Last night's Newsnight show was very entertaining...
Last night's Newsnight show was very entertaining...
|
|
