The case for another referendum is not that leave campaigners "lied". It is that there was not sufficient information at the time as to what Brexit might look like to make it a meaningful decision, as proved by the fact that we are now the day before the original planned Brexit date and Parliament still cant decide what it should look like.
No company or individual would fail to re-consider a major decision in these circumstances and I am at a loss to understand why a democracy is not able to do so.
I'm just curious as to how Flashy thinks Parliament could have actually made the UK leave the EU in his ridiculous hypothetical situation.
Perhaps he could enlighten us, and then enlighten Parliament, so that Parliament can actually respect the result of the referendum and take us out of the EU.
If it became obvious that the lies had, or were very likely to have had a real correlation with the reasons people voted to leave, then I would certainly see the case for asking the question again, but with the lies clarified.
Although I might also make a minimum course of study a prerequisite of voting, there is still some startlingly mendacious ignorance on display.
Which was the MP who this morning tweeted that we should just get on and leave on "WTO transition terms"?
Wibble, but that is fine because most decisions can be easily reversed at the next general election. When we are making a once in a generational decision then we either need good information or the ability to change our mind.
The thing is, I believe that if there had been a competent method of leaving which mitigated the economic and social impact, many remainders including me would have reluctantly gone along with it despite our misgivings.
However it’s pretty clear that a deal of that nature is a pipe dream. I doubt very much that the majority of leavers would want a catastrophic cliff edge style of leave scenario and that’s not even looking at the impact that even the current pre-leave situation is having on the jobs market.
So I do feel it would be perfectly democratically acceptable to have a confirmatory vote where people now will have it spelled out for them exactly what shape “leave” will take and compare it to the already known situation of remaining and then make an educated choice between the two.
So, in this hypothetical situation, Wibble, you would need to have a broadly pro remain electorate, who somehow managed, in 2015, to elect a majority of absolute head bangers to parliament in 2015.
Those head bangers would then have needed to legislate for an advisory referendum on leaving the EU, campaigned to leave and lost that campaign.
They would then need to have triggered Article 50, a decision which surely would have been JR'ed, and that litigation would have needed to go all the way to the Supreme Court, who would need to have been incapable of reaching the conclusion that parliament deciding to trigger Article 50 despite the electorate voting to remain was in any way unconstitutional.
The government would then have needed to take the decision to sit on their hands and do nothing for two years, without there being any significant opposition from parliament or any votes of confidence triggering an early election.
Assuming all of the above happened, you would then be in a situation where the UK has crashed out of the EU, lost all of its trade deals overnight, is in an extremely weak economic position and, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, has no credibility as a viable negotiating partner. Then you negotiate your trade deals.
Yeah.
Sounds like a great idea. Easy. Simple. Can't see how anything could possibly do wrong.
also a different, less shit government would have sorted out trade deals by now.
The issue we have is a remainer government trying to deliver a Brexit they do not want to happen, so have come up with a terrible deal NO ONE wants and in the meantime did not bother to make the arrnagements necessary to function.
The fact that TM and her people are shit and unable to do their job, is a different point .
If there was a referendum with a clear form of Brexit (such as May's deal) v Remain I would be happy to accept the result. Indeed I would be happy for the exit date to be set in law for the day after the referendum result should the vote be for leave (leaving no time for parliament to override). If leave win, no matter how narrowly and we have a form of brexit pre-organised you will hear no complaints from me - the debate will be over.
oh and with regard to business, what they are concerned about is the threat of a no deal clusterfvck. Guarantee that is not happening and they will be (relatively) happy in the short term. What they really want of course is long term certainty that existing trading relationships with europe will not be completely fooked and only no brexit or a very soft brexit offers that.
No. Because even if there had been lying, I still understand the good reasons for remaining and that's why I voted for it. Unless you are saying that all reasons for remaining are lies in your hypothetical situation, which is a bit ridiculous because the reality is there are some pros and cons of both.
If I'd voted to leave (and lost) it would be different - I'd be pleased.
Not sure this example really takes us anywhere, old bean.
also a different, less shit government would have sorted out trade deals by now.
The issue we have is a remainer government trying to deliver a Brexit they do not want to happen
Hanners m7 u’ve gone full on delusional
the Government has been riddled with Europhobes in positions of power ever since the vote and May is now a hard Brexit enthusiast
the trouble is that Europhobes aren’t competent, so they all resigned the moment they had to do something other than protest (they have lots of similarities with Corbyn in that regard)
whic actually is the entire problem with Brexit. All Breixters seem intent on avoiding having to do it and then moaning that the reason it’s not being done is because no Brexters are doing it
0
0
It's a bit of a moot point, seeing as leave did win and nearly three years on parliament still hasn't got a fooking clue how to actually leave.
0
0
It's hard to lie about what is currently the case as opposed to what may be the case in the future.
And why would parliament then "make "Britain" leave"??
These attempted analogies don't work because leaving is damaging and stupid and remaining is just.... staying the same.
0
0
No
Why would you flashy? Democracy of conveience advocate that you are and all that
0
0
The case for another referendum is not that leave campaigners "lied". It is that there was not sufficient information at the time as to what Brexit might look like to make it a meaningful decision, as proved by the fact that we are now the day before the original planned Brexit date and Parliament still cant decide what it should look like.
No company or individual would fail to re-consider a major decision in these circumstances and I am at a loss to understand why a democracy is not able to do so.
0
0
There is never "sufficient information at the time" to make any electoral decisions.
Reality is NEVER what anyone asking you to vote for them says it is, ever.
0
0
I'm just curious as to how Flashy thinks Parliament could have actually made the UK leave the EU in his ridiculous hypothetical situation.
Perhaps he could enlighten us, and then enlighten Parliament, so that Parliament can actually respect the result of the referendum and take us out of the EU.
0
0
Leaving the EU is simple.
Leaving the EU in the way the TM has decided to is very very impossible.
0
0
How is it simple? How would you do it?
0
0
Simple.
Trigger Art 50. Leave.
Negotiate stuff.
0
0
If it became obvious that the lies had, or were very likely to have had a real correlation with the reasons people voted to leave, then I would certainly see the case for asking the question again, but with the lies clarified.
Although I might also make a minimum course of study a prerequisite of voting, there is still some startlingly mendacious ignorance on display.
Which was the MP who this morning tweeted that we should just get on and leave on "WTO transition terms"?
0
0
Wibble, but that is fine because most decisions can be easily reversed at the next general election. When we are making a once in a generational decision then we either need good information or the ability to change our mind.
0
0
The thing is, I believe that if there had been a competent method of leaving which mitigated the economic and social impact, many remainders including me would have reluctantly gone along with it despite our misgivings.
However it’s pretty clear that a deal of that nature is a pipe dream. I doubt very much that the majority of leavers would want a catastrophic cliff edge style of leave scenario and that’s not even looking at the impact that even the current pre-leave situation is having on the jobs market.
So I do feel it would be perfectly democratically acceptable to have a confirmatory vote where people now will have it spelled out for them exactly what shape “leave” will take and compare it to the already known situation of remaining and then make an educated choice between the two.
0
0
I think the information was "good enough".
Both sides lied, they always do.
most people did not pay much attention to the lies, they votes how they had felt for years.
0
0
So, in this hypothetical situation, Wibble, you would need to have a broadly pro remain electorate, who somehow managed, in 2015, to elect a majority of absolute head bangers to parliament in 2015.
Those head bangers would then have needed to legislate for an advisory referendum on leaving the EU, campaigned to leave and lost that campaign.
They would then need to have triggered Article 50, a decision which surely would have been JR'ed, and that litigation would have needed to go all the way to the Supreme Court, who would need to have been incapable of reaching the conclusion that parliament deciding to trigger Article 50 despite the electorate voting to remain was in any way unconstitutional.
The government would then have needed to take the decision to sit on their hands and do nothing for two years, without there being any significant opposition from parliament or any votes of confidence triggering an early election.
Assuming all of the above happened, you would then be in a situation where the UK has crashed out of the EU, lost all of its trade deals overnight, is in an extremely weak economic position and, as far as the rest of the world is concerned, has no credibility as a viable negotiating partner. Then you negotiate your trade deals.
Yeah.
Sounds like a great idea. Easy. Simple. Can't see how anything could possibly do wrong.
Ya stupid prick.
0
0
I meant AFTER the referendum, obviously you spaz.
also a different, less shit government would have sorted out trade deals by now.
The issue we have is a remainer government trying to deliver a Brexit they do not want to happen, so have come up with a terrible deal NO ONE wants and in the meantime did not bother to make the arrnagements necessary to function.
The fact that TM and her people are shit and unable to do their job, is a different point .
0
0
wibble28 Mar 19 14:58
I think the information was "good enough".
Both sides lied, they always do.
most people did not pay much attention to the lies, they votes how they had felt for years.
______________________________________________________________________________
Many people were told that austerity would end, they believed that and they voted for that and surprise surprise they haven't been given that
350 M for NHS was written on a bus for a reason
not 350 M for corporate tax breaks
not 350 M for DUP bribes
not 350 M for trade envoy flats
0
0
wibble28 Mar 19 15:07
also a different, less shit government would have sorted out trade deals by now.
__________________________________________________________________________
You heard it here first folks, Don't Vote Conservative, Corbyn would have had this in the bag
aaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahaha
0
0
Dunno mate, a turd in a bag could have done a better job.
0
0
No, the issue, you "spaz", is that Brexit is fundamentally a shit idea and puts us in a weaker position.
You can't polish a turd. (Although Brexit is not so much a turd as a cholera outbreak.)
0
0
Hence why it’s supported by Virus Johnson.
:-D
0
0
The EU is turd.
You have been trying to polish it for ages.
PS - next time try sprinkling glitter on it, that works better and you don't end up smelling of poo.
HTH
0
0
Btw I’m aware Cholera is caused by a bacteria.
0
0
You haven't got any better ideas than remain, so take some immodium and pipe the fook down, there's a good boy.
0
0
I do have a better idea. Leave.
HTH.
Once we leave the EU will collapse within a few years anyhow.
0
0
Remainers - if Remain had won back in 2016
Lord Flasheart 28 Mar 19 14:25
Reply |
Report
|
but they'd lied in their campaigning, would you be ok with it if Parliament then made Britain leave?
TBH I'd Arsene Wenger it and pretend I hadn't seen it.
0
0
0
0
The fact that you do not like something does not mean that you are correct.
HTH
Also. Ray - Cool Story Bro
0
0
It doesn't mean I'm not correct either though, and in this case I am.
0
0
er....
0
0
"my ilk" lol you dim fook.
Second ref would be even more leave and what then??
0
0
It really wouldn't, m3.
0
0
something else you are wrong about then.
0
0
So far I haven't been wrong about anything except when Theresa May would trigger Article 50.
0
0
For the slow of thinking (that's you Ray), the issues with a second vote are: -
1. The economy is waiting for Brexit to happen. Delay will cost millions
2. It will create even more hate and division.
3. At the end when the result is the same you lot will not shutup so it would achive nothing.
HTH
0
0
Not as much hate and division as rationing and mass job losses.
0
0
If there was a referendum with a clear form of Brexit (such as May's deal) v Remain I would be happy to accept the result. Indeed I would be happy for the exit date to be set in law for the day after the referendum result should the vote be for leave (leaving no time for parliament to override). If leave win, no matter how narrowly and we have a form of brexit pre-organised you will hear no complaints from me - the debate will be over.
0
0
oh and with regard to business, what they are concerned about is the threat of a no deal clusterfvck. Guarantee that is not happening and they will be (relatively) happy in the short term. What they really want of course is long term certainty that existing trading relationships with europe will not be completely fooked and only no brexit or a very soft brexit offers that.
0
0
No. Because even if there had been lying, I still understand the good reasons for remaining and that's why I voted for it. Unless you are saying that all reasons for remaining are lies in your hypothetical situation, which is a bit ridiculous because the reality is there are some pros and cons of both.
If I'd voted to leave (and lost) it would be different - I'd be pleased.
Not sure this example really takes us anywhere, old bean.
0
0
Hanners m7 u’ve gone full on delusional
the Government has been riddled with Europhobes in positions of power ever since the vote and May is now a hard Brexit enthusiast
the trouble is that Europhobes aren’t competent, so they all resigned the moment they had to do something other than protest (they have lots of similarities with Corbyn in that regard)
whic actually is the entire problem with Brexit. All Breixters seem intent on avoiding having to do it and then moaning that the reason it’s not being done is because no Brexters are doing it
0
0
Thick Penis.
And not in a good way
0
0
?
m7 u kno full well that the Government has had Brexters in key positions all this time
don’t deny it
0
0
Wot Serge said last night.
Join the discussion