ChatterBank0 min ago
Would You Back A Second Referendum
I would not and if one was implemented I won’t vote again, there’s calls for another one, what happened to democracy ?
Answers
Yes I would vote as its a vote hard fought for and a privilege which should not be ignored. What's the point of criticising what's going on in the country then not voting? I would vote again and I would change my vote to remain unless there was a choice of leave with no deal and I would vote for that.. The 2016 vote was done purely on conjecture ,what was going to happen...
09:17 Mon 21st Oct 2019
TTT: // "For example, such deals represent the current best the UK can achieve in its negotiations with the EU," - rubbish, the problem is we tipped our hand from the start... //
Even if you contend that the UK could have done better (and even that's debatable), how does it undermine the claim I'm making? Either because of its own incompetence, or because of objective reality that no amount of determination could overcome, the UK has "succeeded" in negotiating a rotten deal. But, whatever the course, that is the deal on the table. We must now either accept it (on the dubious grounds of "getting Brexit done", whatever the cost), or choose a significantly worse and more destructive path ("No Deal"), or revisit the question altogether. Turning back is always an option.
Even if you contend that the UK could have done better (and even that's debatable), how does it undermine the claim I'm making? Either because of its own incompetence, or because of objective reality that no amount of determination could overcome, the UK has "succeeded" in negotiating a rotten deal. But, whatever the course, that is the deal on the table. We must now either accept it (on the dubious grounds of "getting Brexit done", whatever the cost), or choose a significantly worse and more destructive path ("No Deal"), or revisit the question altogether. Turning back is always an option.
I'm unsure how many times it needs pointing out spath. Since a decision was made but has yet to be carried out, any further asking of the same question is blatantly obviously just an attempt to thwart democracy, by ignoring the result of first vote, not support it. It's the same filthy trick that the EU likes to pull. Which should speak volumes. Democracy is not the rerunning of votes that a portion of the losers aren't capable of accepting the result of.
Pity the EU aren't apparently that fussed about our future relationship, given their destructive suggestions, demands, and refusal to budge (much). Luckily we keep trying to reach an agreement, it being in our nature. But yes our diplomats need to be diplomatic, ABers can be more honest since we won't have much influence anyway.
//I was voting for the status quo//
As I keep pointing out, spathi, voting to remain was not a vote for the "status quo" ("the existing state of affairs"). The EU will not remain as it is and its members will not enjoy (or suffer) the same conditions of membership. If you think it would, look at the difference between the EU now and the EC of just, say, fifteen or twenty years ago. The EU does not do the "status quo". Leavers are often accused of not knowing what they were voting for. Well if you believed you were voting for the status quo you acted in equal ignorance.
As I keep pointing out, spathi, voting to remain was not a vote for the "status quo" ("the existing state of affairs"). The EU will not remain as it is and its members will not enjoy (or suffer) the same conditions of membership. If you think it would, look at the difference between the EU now and the EC of just, say, fifteen or twenty years ago. The EU does not do the "status quo". Leavers are often accused of not knowing what they were voting for. Well if you believed you were voting for the status quo you acted in equal ignorance.
