^^Good job my first seven words made it clear I was saying no such thing then eh?
Don't tell me bunghole boy's reading difficulties are catching.
^^Good job my first seven words made it clear I was saying no such thing then eh?
Don't tell me bunghole boy's reading difficulties are catching.
^^ It's a strong argument, no doubt.
IMO what is manifestly best for the country to move forward in a more unified way is to have a second ref.
^^ Wow.
Maybe the problem is more deep seated than I thought.
You don't understand that 'this sort of activity' means I am not referring only to wasabi and his family?
3 votes for UKIP from a guy who posts like he can barely tie his own bootlaces and his family, at least one of whom is Thai and just went along with her husband.
That's an example of why the country should be doomed for decades in your opinion. Purely because of numbers.
That would be better, imo.
It's a tricky one though, given how dumb the British electorate proved itself the first time around.
Perhaps an internet style 'robot' spotter could be used also.
Something like 'tick the box with the car in it'.
Not to spot robots of course, but to weed out a few of the terminally moronic.
So from a very small sample (wasabi and his family - 4 people), you conclude that millions of other voters in the UK are the same, possibly drunk, possibly stupid (possibly neither)?
Do you consider them (wasabi and his family) as unfit to vote in a referendum... and by extension, millions of other voters unfit to vote?
The referendum was a stupid idea which asked a stupid question based on a tissue of lies of an electorate which is in many cases ill equipped to answer even a sensible question.
That all combined to leave a meaningless result.
Now the electorate has had three years to try and comprehend the complexities of this question, and contemplate what an idiotic move it would be to exit.
I believe a second referendum is worth it. In countries like Switzerland they regularly have two votes on such matters. The first is to confirm that the possibility of doing something can be examined. The second enables a more informed decision on whether or not it should actually be done.
I really think it would have a hugely negative effect on the UK for many many decades to come, possibly centuries. I think it could totally fuck up the UK political system in a way that would be far far worse than any possible economic effect leaving the EU would have. That's what concerns me. To have a referendum, promise it would be implemented and then not deliver it is scandalous. But if you want another in/out question, how many should the UK go for? Best out of 3? Best out of 5? Best out of 9? First to reach double figures?
Lord Buckethead has the right idea, a referendum on whether to have a referendum or not...
Let's have a GE with the Brexit Party against the Lib Dems. The Tories and Labour can prop up the bar and watch along with the other undecided.
Also, using the swiss model, BREXIT should have had a majority in England, Scotland, Wales and N. Ireland.
The way that Scotland in particular was disempowered is shameful.
https://medium.com/reformermag/the-s...s-d3c4d9af13a4
There were so many flaws that the best way out, difficult though it is constitutionally, is ref 2.
And Nev...it's time to look for answers. That means looking to the future.
The best way out is to deliver Brexit asap. Three fucking years and still not done. Pathetic.
Some people need rather a lot of persuading to lift a revolver to their temples and shoot.
Strawman argument..
One more referendum is enough whatever the outcome from it becomes.
You didn't understand how divided the country (and your government) was, and how even more dived it would become, when you voted.
You had a government who was so sure that remain would win that they didn't prepare for a leave or even found it necessary to inform the voters
beforehand through a booklet the estimated pros and cons of leaving or remaining.
The first referendum was a fekking joke, one shouldn't let people vote about such important things as leaving/remaining in the union without giving them the chance to inform themselves properly.
The Brittons knows quite a bit more now so a 2nd referendum will give a better understanding of what they want today, if it still is leave then so be it.
No. One in/out referendum is enough and deliver the outcome. By all means have a vote on the deal offered and no deal.
And you think having another referendum will somehow unite the country?
Both sides had the opportunity to canvass and make their points.The Prime Minister at the time, David Cameron, certainly campaigned hard for remain and highlighted what he viewed as the negative effects of the UK leaving the EU. There was plenty of fear mongering yet Leave still got 1.2 million more votes than Remain.
See above.
See above points.
1 - The intro presumes all Ref1 voters were ill informed and voted on a coin toss.
2 - 'Still' presumes the whole country voted leave in Ref1.
3 - Only leavers answer Q2?
4 - 'if so needed' is subjective, noncommital and therefore meaningless, leading to another 3-year round of nothingness.
5 - The options on any legitimate Ref2 could only be leave with or without a deal, but don't tell squirrel or the Belgian.
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)