Forty Seven wrote: » People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.
Bannasidhe wrote: » On both sides? Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are? Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications. It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out. Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means. Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred? One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant. Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal. Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park. So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there. Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)
Forty Seven wrote: » Not the norm for referendums. How many of those have been rerun in the UK within 5 years?
SeaBreezes wrote: » Something I am not clear on, if anyone could clarify? The SC decision that 'it never happened' does that give Boris a graceful out that he never broke the law (as it never happened) did the SC actually let him get away with breaking the law?
VinLieger wrote: » No he broke the law but there's not likely to be any kind of punishment beyond the political ramifications.
Deleted User wrote: » Now that a deal (or none in this case) has been agreed on, it's been revealed that Brexit will harm an awful lot of the population. A good Govt would revert back to the population and ask them a simple," Should Britain leave under these terms?" ballot.
Peregrinus wrote: » He didn't "break the law" in the sense of committing a crime, and the police will not become involved. And the court conspicuously avoided finding that he lied to the queen, or even asking itself that question. The advice he gave was unlawful not because of his motive or intent in offering it, but because of the effect implementing it would have had.
Capt'n Midnight wrote: » “I’m not saying there wasn’t a democratic mandate for Brexit at the time. I’m just saying if I narrowly decided to order fish at a restaurant that was known for chicken, but said it was happy to offer fish, and so far I’ve been waiting three hours, and two chefs who promised to cook the fish had quit, and the third one is promising to deliver the fish in the next five minutes whether it’s cooked or not, or indeed still alive, and all the waiting staff have spent the last few hours arguing amongst themselves about whether I wanted battered cod, grilled salmon, jellied eels or dolphin kebabs, and if large parts of the restaurant appeared to be on fire but no-one was paying attention to it because they were all arguing about fish, I would quite like, just once, to be asked if I definitely still wanted the fish." - Jay Rayner, food critic
Water John wrote: » The best way to create a middle ground that will help a healing process of deep divisions is probably a soft Brexit a la Lb option. The soft Brexit option is what TM should have followed instead of her 3 red lines. However she was blinded by her obsession with immigration control. She would have got it across the line with a lot of Lb MPs, despite the ERG.
Genghis wrote: » Anyone listen to Eamon Dunphys latest podcast on The Stand. Regular contributor Brendan O'Neill appears. I've listened to him contribute a few times, always infuriating. I decided to quote done of his bull.
Forty Seven wrote: » 5 years too. I'm cool with another go in 2021 if you are.
Shelga wrote: » Brendan O’Neill is eviscerated rather amusingly by Alex Andreou in this Twitter thread:https://twitter.com/sturdyalex/status/1176621623891386368?s=21 I would not even waste breath on the man though. He is dangerously ill-informed. You should save your anger for media outlets who choose to give him a platform- Sky News, Eamon Dunphy etc. He serves no purpose whatsoever, other than to pour petrol onto the fire of an ill-informed, brainwashed electorate.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Forty Seven wrote: » People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides. Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic. On both sides? Remain is very straight forward, Easy to understand. Do you wish things to stay as they are? Leave , on the other hand, not so straight forward is it? So hard to understand that not even the government understands all of the implications. It's like asking people if they want to stay home or go out. Stay home - yup, we know exactly what that means. Go out? Sounds simple but has anyone agree where to actually go once exit has occurred? One person wants to go greyhound racing and insists that is what the vote meant. Others are saying hang on, I think greyhound racing is barbaric and I absolutely do not want to go there. I want to go for a nice meal. Yet another person says I can't afford to go to an expensive restaurant, and I'm not going greyhound racing - I want to go to the park. So there they all are - standing at the door with no idea of where they are actually going or how they are going to get there. Better they get to decide between 'Stay Home' or 'Going Out (See attached itinerary for details)
woohoo!!! wrote: » I've been giving this considerable thought. For me this is the most exciting thing since the A-team, it really is gripping. And so far the arch villain cannot exclaim that I love it when a plan comes together
Forty Seven wrote: » You appear to be viewing democracy as just referendums. You cannot have losers trying to constantly challenge a democratic vote. If losers kept challenging elected mps we would not have democracy for long. It's deemed bad form. You are moving the goalposts regarding majority. No deal was not defined. In or out. Out won. Moving the posts to the cornerflag is a churlish endeavour in this context. Scottish independence referendum was also defeated by a majority. Those are the majorities I'm talking about as you well know. You can huff and puff as is your right but it changes nothing.
Seth Brundle wrote: » This is the crux of the problem. You chose to leave something. That something was left vague and has now resulted in vastly different views on what it is that you should leave. Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the SM? Did everyone who voted leave want to leave the CU? Did everyone who voted leave do so to stop immigration despite the UK govt not effectively using the laws already in existence? Did everyone who voted leave expect to be able to travel to the EU as before? Did they expect to continue to have no mobile phone roaming charges? Did they expect the imminent break up of the UK with either NI or Scotland jumping first followed quickly by the other? A binary vote should never have been put to the people!
prawnsambo wrote: » I wouldn't be so kind as to call him ill-informed. Spiked is a Koch brothers funded organ of misinformation and Brendan does as his masters require.
Shelga wrote: » This is a very important point, and explains why I’m slightly uneasy with everyone saying he was found to have misled the Queen. That is not the conclusion the Supreme Court reached
This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister’s advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect.
Forty Seven wrote: » Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Do you want a European army? Do you want blanket corporate tax rates? Do you want more federalisation? People voted leave. They likely want a deal but there is not a deal acceptable to both sides. I believe Boris wants a deal. He is playing hardball. We will see if he succeeds. If not then we leave anyway. The country is no closer to a remain majority than it was. I don't want another referendum. I've had enough. I want it done as does everyone I know.
Forty Seven wrote: » People are informed. What they choose is their business. There will be those that didn't understand on both sides.
Forty Seven wrote: » Should we mandate a questionnaire and disqualify those who don't understand? Not very democratic.
Forty Seven wrote: » Absolute tosh. Remain is much more than remaining the same and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Do you want a European army? Do you want blanket corporate tax rates? Do you want more federalisation?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w1.vanillicon.com/v2/1de30a3af99564ce338f7a27f88f9656.svg)
