By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Dale lost in the FA cup to Portsmouth. It was a deflected free kick in added time; a marginal decision; a bitter pill to swallow. Aggrieved as many felt however, they cannot now campaign to be in the semifinals.
Had the result been reversed can anyone imagine "leave" getting a further opportunity within a generation?
"Remain" lost the referendum. Frustrating a democratic decision should not be rewarded by a second opportunity 3 years later having deliberately chosen not to implement the expressed choice of the country. Therein lies chaos.
By all means have a second referendum. Whatever "leave agreement" the politicians can cobble together v "no deal".
[Post edited 26 Mar 2019 11:00]
A second referendum would be entirely reasonable in about 20 years. We must implement the result of the 2016 referendum otherwise all future votes are worthless (unless we get the right answer). But any decision made by Generation X should not be binding on generation X+1, X+2 etc.
Democracy is the worst form of Government apart from all those other forms.......
Given the inherent unaccountability of the EU and its undemocratic nature, perhaps it is no surprise that those who strongly advocate it's merits have such cavalier disregard for a referendum result with which they disagree.
As Mrs May ponders her future; as Mr Corbyn dreams of a change in government; as constituency MPs balance their own beliefs and ambitions against those of their local associations......
......Tusk, Barnier and their ilk remain secure and untouchable in their appointed sinecures within European ivory towers.
Ste,
Not only do you make a valid point but you make it strongly. Cheers.
Dale lost in the FA cup to Portsmouth. It was a deflected free kick in added time; a marginal decision; a bitter pill to swallow. Aggrieved as many felt however, they cannot now campaign to be in the semifinals.
Had the result been reversed can anyone imagine "leave" getting a further opportunity within a generation?
"Remain" lost the referendum. Frustrating a democratic decision should not be rewarded by a second opportunity 3 years later having deliberately chosen not to implement the expressed choice of the country. Therein lies chaos.
By all means have a second referendum. Whatever "leave agreement" the politicians can cobble together v "no deal".
[Post edited 26 Mar 2019 11:00]
"Dale lost in the FA cup to Portsmouth. It was a deflected free kick in added time; a marginal decision; a bitter pill to swallow. Aggrieved as many felt however, they cannot now campaign to be in the semifinals."
First of all - this incessant oversimplification of an incredibly complex debate is what got us into this shambles in the first place. But even to entertain your analogy for a moment, yes you are correct - football has well-defined regulations governing what happens when one team wins, in the absence of any ruling otherwise by the FA (for example in the event of ineligibly-fielded players, as our friends down the road will attest). Funnily enough, the politics of a democracy isn't quite the same, is it? It's almost as if a football match and a political decision with decades of ramifications aren't the same thing! The populace are well within their rights to table a debate on the matter, and our elected representatives are then free to vote on a second referendum if they think it represents their constituents. You're then similarly free to vote them out if you see fit to do so.
"Had the result been reversed can anyone imagine "leave" getting a further opportunity within a generation?"
Depends on the circumstances really. The Scots are looking for a second independence referendum and their last was 5 years ago. The setting has changed, new information is available and they believe it is warranted. But either way, who is drawing that "generation" line here? Is that your decision? How are you defining a "generation"? 20 years? 30 years? And is that now written in law that a referendum decision can not be revisited until a certain point? Why is "the will of the people" only important the first time around, and not now?
""Remain" lost the referendum. Frustrating a democratic decision should not be rewarded by a second opportunity 3 years later having deliberately chosen not to implement the expressed choice of the country. Therein lies chaos."
The populace aren't the ones "frustrating a democratic decision" (if you believe that's what is happening), that's the politicians. So why restrict the voice of the people due to the actions of those in power? Wasn't "taking back control" quite important to you chaps a few years ago? Personally, seems to me like nobody is deliberately "frustrating a democratic decision", rather that the apparent "expressed choice of the country" wasn't explicit in any of its logistical details, and therein has lain the chaos, but here we are.
"By all means have a second referendum. Whatever "leave agreement" the politicians can cobble together v "no deal"."
Not a terrible argument. But I'm curious - hypothetically, if "Remain" WAS a third option on such a ballot, and received more votes than the other two, what would your response be to that scenario?
1. "First of all - this incessant oversimplification of an incredibly complex debate is what got us into this shambles in the first place."
On the contrary, it is very simple; the vote was to leave. The moment that the UK leaves, it is still in full alignment with the EU. Only if and when there is subsequent divergence are any decisions or negotiations necessary between the EU and Westminster. (Of course it would be pragmatic for any such to be planned for sensibly and reasonably in advance) It only becomes complex if a decision is made to pretend that the starting point is one of non-alignment. Only an idiot, or someone who wanted to deliberately make matters unnecessarily complex would take such a stance, talk of cliff edges or preclude any discussion on future trade arrangements until after departure. Of course the anti Brexit EU Commissioners and "remain" supporting Westminster MPs are not idiots.
2. "And is that now written into law that a referendum decision can not be revisited until a second point"
On this point there is no enshrined rule, possibly just custom and practice. Referenda are rare events in the UK. I can recollect 7 in 5 decades (with 4 of these relating specifically to Scotland (x2), Wales and NI only). Only one has ever been on the same theme twice and that after a period of more than forty years. In every case thus far the outcomes were accepted and where necessary legislation passed to comply with the stated wishes of the voters. Those seeking a "second" referendum are by all previous precedents significantly premature in seeking a "peoples vote" to include "remain".
3. "The populace aren't the ones "frustrating democratic decision"....that's the politicians."
I agree absolutely. (see point 1 above)
4. "Wasn't "taking back control" quite important to you chaps a few years ago?"
Absolutely correct, and that is still the case. It will only be realised however once the UK has left the EU.
Representative government abrogated responsibility when MPs delegated their decision making function to the people. Having done so they are now on questionable political and moral ground when backtracking on the clear mandate delivered in the referendum, voting against all outcomes enshrined in the statute they passed into law when triggering article 50, and reneging on their manifesto commitments at the last general election.
5. "If "remain" WAS a third option on such a ballot........
To place "remain" against an agreement equally loathed by eurosceptics and europhiles would be tantamount to rigging the ballot. To split the "leave" vote between two options against "remain" might be considered gerrymandering.
The logical reason why "remain" should have no place in a second referendum has been enunciated previously. If Parliament requires popular endorsement then ask between whatever "leave agreement" they wish to propose and "no deal" as per article 50.
One might hope that an injustice were righted; that Dale might take their deserving place at Wembley on FA cup semifinal day. Sadly, common sense suggests that instead they will have to await the completion of the competition this May, before embarking afresh on a new campaign in the first round next season.
The UK will not be succeeding from the European Union. The good news is people will turn to more populists and far right parties such as the ones in Hungary or the national front in France.
Not sure if this point has already been made but isn’t it funny that the people banging on about a second referendum are the very ones blatantly disregarding the result of the first one! All I can say is welcome to fascist Britain: How else can you describe a ruling elite “dictating” against the democratic will of the people? Of course we have an option to join Europe but that should be a decision made “after” we have left. If it is a mistake then politicians have the option of getting us back in. Trouble is all those with vested interests in Europe are shit scared of us leaving in case (which I believe) we make a good go of it.
The worm of time turns not for the cuckoo of circumstance.
Not sure if this point has already been made but isn’t it funny that the people banging on about a second referendum are the very ones blatantly disregarding the result of the first one! All I can say is welcome to fascist Britain: How else can you describe a ruling elite “dictating” against the democratic will of the people? Of course we have an option to join Europe but that should be a decision made “after” we have left. If it is a mistake then politicians have the option of getting us back in. Trouble is all those with vested interests in Europe are shit scared of us leaving in case (which I believe) we make a good go of it.
Good points another point lost in all this is that Britain never joined the European union in the first place. Britain simply got absorbed by Europe through the back door which was the European common market. That our joining the common market was very late in the piece and by which time the European trading block was dominated by France and Germany positions that they have never relinquished as it morphed into the EU. Should we leave we would be in a far better bargaining position should we in the future rejoin.
Not sure if this point has already been made but isn’t it funny that the people banging on about a second referendum are the very ones blatantly disregarding the result of the first one! All I can say is welcome to fascist Britain: How else can you describe a ruling elite “dictating” against the democratic will of the people? Of course we have an option to join Europe but that should be a decision made “after” we have left. If it is a mistake then politicians have the option of getting us back in. Trouble is all those with vested interests in Europe are shit scared of us leaving in case (which I believe) we make a good go of it.
If the first referendum had been clear and honest I think it would be more respected. People voted out but nobody knew really what out meant - what deals were available, the no deal option etc. Now we have a better idea. Also the referendum was now three years ago. People have died, people are now able to vote who couldn't in 2016. This makes me feel that the only democratic way forward would be to ask the nation again then the whole process of Brexit (with three options: no deal, May's deal or no Brexit) can be implemented swiftly, if that's what was voted for. Those who voted Brexit can vote that way again if they haven't changed their minds. Anyway it's all in the hands of our capable politicians right now - who knows how it all will end!
1. "First of all - this incessant oversimplification of an incredibly complex debate is what got us into this shambles in the first place."
On the contrary, it is very simple; the vote was to leave. The moment that the UK leaves, it is still in full alignment with the EU. Only if and when there is subsequent divergence are any decisions or negotiations necessary between the EU and Westminster. (Of course it would be pragmatic for any such to be planned for sensibly and reasonably in advance) It only becomes complex if a decision is made to pretend that the starting point is one of non-alignment. Only an idiot, or someone who wanted to deliberately make matters unnecessarily complex would take such a stance, talk of cliff edges or preclude any discussion on future trade arrangements until after departure. Of course the anti Brexit EU Commissioners and "remain" supporting Westminster MPs are not idiots.
2. "And is that now written into law that a referendum decision can not be revisited until a second point"
On this point there is no enshrined rule, possibly just custom and practice. Referenda are rare events in the UK. I can recollect 7 in 5 decades (with 4 of these relating specifically to Scotland (x2), Wales and NI only). Only one has ever been on the same theme twice and that after a period of more than forty years. In every case thus far the outcomes were accepted and where necessary legislation passed to comply with the stated wishes of the voters. Those seeking a "second" referendum are by all previous precedents significantly premature in seeking a "peoples vote" to include "remain".
3. "The populace aren't the ones "frustrating democratic decision"....that's the politicians."
I agree absolutely. (see point 1 above)
4. "Wasn't "taking back control" quite important to you chaps a few years ago?"
Absolutely correct, and that is still the case. It will only be realised however once the UK has left the EU.
Representative government abrogated responsibility when MPs delegated their decision making function to the people. Having done so they are now on questionable political and moral ground when backtracking on the clear mandate delivered in the referendum, voting against all outcomes enshrined in the statute they passed into law when triggering article 50, and reneging on their manifesto commitments at the last general election.
5. "If "remain" WAS a third option on such a ballot........
To place "remain" against an agreement equally loathed by eurosceptics and europhiles would be tantamount to rigging the ballot. To split the "leave" vote between two options against "remain" might be considered gerrymandering.
The logical reason why "remain" should have no place in a second referendum has been enunciated previously. If Parliament requires popular endorsement then ask between whatever "leave agreement" they wish to propose and "no deal" as per article 50.
One might hope that an injustice were righted; that Dale might take their deserving place at Wembley on FA cup semifinal day. Sadly, common sense suggests that instead they will have to await the completion of the competition this May, before embarking afresh on a new campaign in the first round next season.
[Post edited 26 Mar 2019 23:02]
Wasn't going to post on this thread again, but after reading your several incredibly well-argued and logically unassailable posts, i just have to give credit
Your point about the questionable moral position taken up by those politicians who'd previously voted to hold the referendum, subsequently invoke Article 50 and stand for parliament with a promise to deliver on the result of the referendum in the 2017 General Election is the most telling of all
We are all - all of us, both Leave & Remain supporters, being betrayed. I congratulate you on the lucidity with which you've demonstrated this in this thread
Wasn't going to post on this thread again, but after reading your several incredibly well-argued and logically unassailable posts, i just have to give credit
Your point about the questionable moral position taken up by those politicians who'd previously voted to hold the referendum, subsequently invoke Article 50 and stand for parliament with a promise to deliver on the result of the referendum in the 2017 General Election is the most telling of all
We are all - all of us, both Leave & Remain supporters, being betrayed. I congratulate you on the lucidity with which you've demonstrated this in this thread
It was indeed a tremendously articulated post.
Nail hit on the head D_Alien regardless of how you / we voted we are all being let down.
Wasn't going to post on this thread again, but after reading your several incredibly well-argued and logically unassailable posts, i just have to give credit
Your point about the questionable moral position taken up by those politicians who'd previously voted to hold the referendum, subsequently invoke Article 50 and stand for parliament with a promise to deliver on the result of the referendum in the 2017 General Election is the most telling of all
We are all - all of us, both Leave & Remain supporters, being betrayed. I congratulate you on the lucidity with which you've demonstrated this in this thread
Indeed lots of excellent arguments on this thread and I've agreed before about the moral argument for honouring the Leave majority (if not about the reason expressed for leaving). Don't understand how Remain voters are being betrayed by politicians - surely such voters might feel those politicians who are pushing for another referendum with 'Remain' on the ballot are working well from their perspective?
Indeed lots of excellent arguments on this thread and I've agreed before about the moral argument for honouring the Leave majority (if not about the reason expressed for leaving). Don't understand how Remain voters are being betrayed by politicians - surely such voters might feel those politicians who are pushing for another referendum with 'Remain' on the ballot are working well from their perspective?
What i meant by that was, irrespective of whether people voted to Remain or Leave, the 3-stage process (Referendum, Article 50, General Election) that the vast majority of MPs either voted for or stood for has since been reneged upon by a substantial number of them
The implication is clear: there's simply no point issuing a Manifesto at election time, since whatever people think they're voting for is a charade. Didn't we just know that anyway, but there's never been a clearer demonstration in British political history, or on such an important issue
In that sense, the entire electorate is betrayed. Some very dangerous precedents have been set, and the consequences will reverberate way beyond Brexit
If the first referendum had been clear and honest I think it would be more respected. People voted out but nobody knew really what out meant - what deals were available, the no deal option etc. Now we have a better idea. Also the referendum was now three years ago. People have died, people are now able to vote who couldn't in 2016. This makes me feel that the only democratic way forward would be to ask the nation again then the whole process of Brexit (with three options: no deal, May's deal or no Brexit) can be implemented swiftly, if that's what was voted for. Those who voted Brexit can vote that way again if they haven't changed their minds. Anyway it's all in the hands of our capable politicians right now - who knows how it all will end!
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 20:47]
I'm sorry but your arguments are typical of a remainer clutching at straws. There were no deals mentioned at the time of the referendum and the options were simple, leave or remain , not leave with strings attached. Yes the referendum was nearly three year ago, but the date of 29th March was set two years ago, that left two years to negotiate deals, not to justify another vote because of the time lapsed . You correctly point out about people dying and others being legible to vote, that's handy for you, seeing that it tended to be the older people (who have probably died) that voted Brexit and 1.7 million younger people who tended to vote remain, are now legible to vote. Also, on your three question referendum , are deal or May's deal clubbed together or are you handily trying to split the leave vote, that would make sure remain would win?
If the first referendum had been clear and honest I think it would be more respected. People voted out but nobody knew really what out meant - what deals were available, the no deal option etc. Now we have a better idea. Also the referendum was now three years ago. People have died, people are now able to vote who couldn't in 2016. This makes me feel that the only democratic way forward would be to ask the nation again then the whole process of Brexit (with three options: no deal, May's deal or no Brexit) can be implemented swiftly, if that's what was voted for. Those who voted Brexit can vote that way again if they haven't changed their minds. Anyway it's all in the hands of our capable politicians right now - who knows how it all will end!
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 20:47]
Perhaps I am in the process of swallowing the bait. (I certainly hope this was not intended as a serious and considered opinion.) In any event.......a reply.
With the benefit of hindsight it is evident that the first referendum was far from honest. The situation is now markedly different and a second "people's vote" entirely justified.
That first ballot took place in the 1970's (when I was too young to vote) and proposed joining a European Economic Community to which the majority assented. Over the decades however it has surreptitiously been transformed into the EU without ever gaining consent from the British public for any of the transfer of sovereignty.
As one who had to wait more than forty years to be given an opportunity to express an opinion, I have sympathy with those who were too young for the referendum 3 years ago. The prospect of having to wait a few seconds at customs when inter-railing during their gap year or being denied access to the Erasmus scheme must be a bitter pill to swallow.
I am certain that those who voted "leave " were equally as knowledgeable as those who wished to "remain". I am further convinced that few have changed their opinion during the last 3 years.
As others have mentioned, it appears logically perverse for those who do not wish to accept the "leave" verdict, to somehow reason that a further public vote could be in anyway considered decisive. This alone is sufficient grounds on which to conclude such a proposition an inadequate way forward.
As for the suggested 3 options "deal", (what deal?) "May's deal" or no Brexit,......I sincerely hope that was written in jest.
What i meant by that was, irrespective of whether people voted to Remain or Leave, the 3-stage process (Referendum, Article 50, General Election) that the vast majority of MPs either voted for or stood for has since been reneged upon by a substantial number of them
The implication is clear: there's simply no point issuing a Manifesto at election time, since whatever people think they're voting for is a charade. Didn't we just know that anyway, but there's never been a clearer demonstration in British political history, or on such an important issue
In that sense, the entire electorate is betrayed. Some very dangerous precedents have been set, and the consequences will reverberate way beyond Brexit
Thanks, that clears it up and it's a sad indictment if folk believe that. Hilarious listening to Rees-Mogg et al praising Theresa May to the heavens (now she's resigned) - the definition of hypocracy. Have to say today's debate in HoC (for all sides) has been markedly better without the Party lines than during the past 2.5 years. I'm impressed with how many are saying they will honour the decision to leave (tho I suspect not all will agree with what constitutes 'leave'). Personally whether we stay or leave the EU matters much less than how far we have an equitable distribution of wealth, income & power and the protection of Human Rights - that might begin to reduce the disgraceful 20 less years of life expectancy for a Rochdale constituent cf one in NE Somerset. My fear is that, as trust in politicians pours away, the rule of the mob rises; historically that's not encouraging. ps would you as a leaver vote for May's deal or No Deal?
Thanks, that clears it up and it's a sad indictment if folk believe that. Hilarious listening to Rees-Mogg et al praising Theresa May to the heavens (now she's resigned) - the definition of hypocracy. Have to say today's debate in HoC (for all sides) has been markedly better without the Party lines than during the past 2.5 years. I'm impressed with how many are saying they will honour the decision to leave (tho I suspect not all will agree with what constitutes 'leave'). Personally whether we stay or leave the EU matters much less than how far we have an equitable distribution of wealth, income & power and the protection of Human Rights - that might begin to reduce the disgraceful 20 less years of life expectancy for a Rochdale constituent cf one in NE Somerset. My fear is that, as trust in politicians pours away, the rule of the mob rises; historically that's not encouraging. ps would you as a leaver vote for May's deal or No Deal?
All good points
On your final point/question - i'm given to understand there's been much 'behind-the-scenes' negotiating with the European Commission about what might happen in the event of No Deal. This is, of course, being kept well out of the spotlight
One of the indicative voting proposals - for Contingent Preferential Arrangements, in the event of Parliament being unable to agree upon a preferred deal - reflects the aforementioned negotiating process. This, imo, would be a perfectly acceptable way of leaving the EU with sufficient breathing space for all parties to settle on a final trading position whilst actually leaving all the institutions of the EU that people who voted Leave in the referendum expected to happen. It involves paying into the EU budget for longer than anticipated, but with an end date for payments assured
Since it's perfectly possible that parliament won't be able to coalesce around one of the other more commonly suggested proposals, leaving on 12 April with the above prospect would represent an adult and entirely reasonable way forward - and one which actually honours the result of the referendum
Perhaps I am in the process of swallowing the bait. (I certainly hope this was not intended as a serious and considered opinion.) In any event.......a reply.
With the benefit of hindsight it is evident that the first referendum was far from honest. The situation is now markedly different and a second "people's vote" entirely justified.
That first ballot took place in the 1970's (when I was too young to vote) and proposed joining a European Economic Community to which the majority assented. Over the decades however it has surreptitiously been transformed into the EU without ever gaining consent from the British public for any of the transfer of sovereignty.
As one who had to wait more than forty years to be given an opportunity to express an opinion, I have sympathy with those who were too young for the referendum 3 years ago. The prospect of having to wait a few seconds at customs when inter-railing during their gap year or being denied access to the Erasmus scheme must be a bitter pill to swallow.
I am certain that those who voted "leave " were equally as knowledgeable as those who wished to "remain". I am further convinced that few have changed their opinion during the last 3 years.
As others have mentioned, it appears logically perverse for those who do not wish to accept the "leave" verdict, to somehow reason that a further public vote could be in anyway considered decisive. This alone is sufficient grounds on which to conclude such a proposition an inadequate way forward.
As for the suggested 3 options "deal", (what deal?) "May's deal" or no Brexit,......I sincerely hope that was written in jest.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 19:23]
Just edited my post, should have read no deal, May's deal or no Brexit. There's so much voting, re-voting and changing of minds going on within parliament that surely the public should also be able to get involved with it all?
On your final point/question - i'm given to understand there's been much 'behind-the-scenes' negotiating with the European Commission about what might happen in the event of No Deal. This is, of course, being kept well out of the spotlight
One of the indicative voting proposals - for Contingent Preferential Arrangements, in the event of Parliament being unable to agree upon a preferred deal - reflects the aforementioned negotiating process. This, imo, would be a perfectly acceptable way of leaving the EU with sufficient breathing space for all parties to settle on a final trading position whilst actually leaving all the institutions of the EU that people who voted Leave in the referendum expected to happen. It involves paying into the EU budget for longer than anticipated, but with an end date for payments assured
Since it's perfectly possible that parliament won't be able to coalesce around one of the other more commonly suggested proposals, leaving on 12 April with the above prospect would represent an adult and entirely reasonable way forward - and one which actually honours the result of the referendum
That would, imo, be preferable to TMs deal
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 20:31]
This is one of the fundamental issues of the Brexit debate though. Leave promised all the benefits of a close relationship with our largest market but without being in its institutions. The problem is, as we’re finding out, the benefits of ‘it’ as an institution is in ‘its’ institutions. Leavers of each persuasion, and there are many (not just no deal), all want the benefits, and there are many benefits (not even the ERG deny that), of access to the European market.
I know it’s the easiest thing in the world to say that the last 3 years have been a disgrace etc. and that politicians are useless etc. but, for me anyway, it’s been the playing out of the realisation that the issue of Brexit really isn’t that simple or, dare I say it, binary. If we want something we’re going to have to compromise. We cannot have the benefits of the European market without some form of institutionsal alignment. And that will apply to any trade agreement we have with whoever.
This is one of the fundamental issues of the Brexit debate though. Leave promised all the benefits of a close relationship with our largest market but without being in its institutions. The problem is, as we’re finding out, the benefits of ‘it’ as an institution is in ‘its’ institutions. Leavers of each persuasion, and there are many (not just no deal), all want the benefits, and there are many benefits (not even the ERG deny that), of access to the European market.
I know it’s the easiest thing in the world to say that the last 3 years have been a disgrace etc. and that politicians are useless etc. but, for me anyway, it’s been the playing out of the realisation that the issue of Brexit really isn’t that simple or, dare I say it, binary. If we want something we’re going to have to compromise. We cannot have the benefits of the European market without some form of institutionsal alignment. And that will apply to any trade agreement we have with whoever.
Regulatory alignment - rather than institutional alignment?
As steofthedale so eloquently pointed out, once Parliament has enacted the necessary legislation to complete the Article 50 process, current EU regulations become part of our laws unless we choose to diverge from them. Should we do that, it'd presumably be to enable competitive advantage without taking a step that would put our trading partners in a position they felt would require retaliatory action. I'm under the distinct impression that the principles of free trade are something the current government are keen to uphold
Any actions which the EU (or any other future trading partner) might take with the specific intention of disadvantaging the UK (and only the UK) would be seen for they would be - pure vindictiveness
Perhaps I am in the process of swallowing the bait. (I certainly hope this was not intended as a serious and considered opinion.) In any event.......a reply.
With the benefit of hindsight it is evident that the first referendum was far from honest. The situation is now markedly different and a second "people's vote" entirely justified.
That first ballot took place in the 1970's (when I was too young to vote) and proposed joining a European Economic Community to which the majority assented. Over the decades however it has surreptitiously been transformed into the EU without ever gaining consent from the British public for any of the transfer of sovereignty.
As one who had to wait more than forty years to be given an opportunity to express an opinion, I have sympathy with those who were too young for the referendum 3 years ago. The prospect of having to wait a few seconds at customs when inter-railing during their gap year or being denied access to the Erasmus scheme must be a bitter pill to swallow.
I am certain that those who voted "leave " were equally as knowledgeable as those who wished to "remain". I am further convinced that few have changed their opinion during the last 3 years.
As others have mentioned, it appears logically perverse for those who do not wish to accept the "leave" verdict, to somehow reason that a further public vote could be in anyway considered decisive. This alone is sufficient grounds on which to conclude such a proposition an inadequate way forward.
As for the suggested 3 options "deal", (what deal?) "May's deal" or no Brexit,......I sincerely hope that was written in jest.
[Post edited 27 Mar 2019 19:23]
Wrong, we entered the EEC as it was then called under ted heath in Jan 73 ...there was no vote. Harold Wilson promosed a referendum on whether we should stay in. That was in June 1975. The result was stay in. It is a myth perpetrated by politicians and some journalists (including David Dimbleby on the night of the most recent referendum) that the british people voted to join the EEC.
What I find interesting is that the 75 referendum was similalry a yes , no question without any ifs or buts or consequences and those who voted leave, as I did, just had to suck it up and accept it as the democratic wish of the majority of those casting a ballot. Nothing about well we didnt know the full consequences, we were lied to by the remainers etc etc.
How times change, or is it that the establishment didnt get the result they wanted this time so we now play to different ‘rules’?
1
(No subject) (n/t) on 22:40 - Mar 27 with 1667 views
Wrong, we entered the EEC as it was then called under ted heath in Jan 73 ...there was no vote. Harold Wilson promosed a referendum on whether we should stay in. That was in June 1975. The result was stay in. It is a myth perpetrated by politicians and some journalists (including David Dimbleby on the night of the most recent referendum) that the british people voted to join the EEC.
What I find interesting is that the 75 referendum was similalry a yes , no question without any ifs or buts or consequences and those who voted leave, as I did, just had to suck it up and accept it as the democratic wish of the majority of those casting a ballot. Nothing about well we didnt know the full consequences, we were lied to by the remainers etc etc.
How times change, or is it that the establishment didnt get the result they wanted this time so we now play to different ‘rules’?
I stand corrected......way to young to vote in '75 and much too young to care in '73.
Nevertheless, the essential essence of the point is unaffected; the vote 3 years ago was to leave a much different entity from that which the UK joined in the 1970s.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
- who knows how it all will end! 
