Current Affairs EU In or Out

In or Out

  • In

    Votes: 688 67.9%
  • Out

    Votes: 325 32.1%

  • Total voters
    1,013
Status
Not open for further replies.
You were.

On the second point, no I'm not saying that at all, I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. I was talking about 'ignoring' remain voters in a decision to leave with No Deal. Likewise I don't think a No Deal is actually enfranchising the electorate, who I don't think voted for that.
As I said, I didn't think I fully understood what you were saying. That's why I asked for clarification.
 
That begs the question why you want them to Take Back Control.

Our politicians are probably the weakest and most useless I have seen in my life. Since we entered the EU they have had a free ride always able to point at Brussels and blame the EU. Meanwhile the civil service keep gold plating every Eu diktat, and suggest we need this or that because of EU law. Once we are out they will have to perform or be replaced....
 
It is difficult. If no deal is expunged from the record then it will be whatever gets approved by the house and revoke or postpone until there is something that allows exiting without the problems we are facing with Ireland.

What we really need is about 35 million of those Men In Black memory erasers to be sent to every home to reset everyone back to before the referendum though.
Agree with you on that. In fact I'd take it further back to when Cameron first promised onelol

But seriously that's one of my main issues with a second referendum. I can't see how you could come up with a set of questions that would engage the whole electorate, apart from the obvious one which we have already established as being too vague.
 
*The whole document defined Leave by spelling out all of the things we were going to lose. Yet even though studies have shown that the document had the desired effect of lowering the Leave vote, we still voted Leave.
*Because you wouldn’t want to confuse the ignorant voters
*Why not, we seem to be in a continual state of voting at the moment so let’s do the whole thing....
1. That doesn't define Leave to any degree whatsoever. There are numerous possible deals that could see us retaining some of the 'benefits' of the EU and losing others. The government had no 'Leave' position other than it as a possibility and simply advocated for remain. Even the referendum question didn't define leave.

'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'

I think you can make a perfectly logical conclusion that the referendum was an indication to parliament of a direction, but not the destination and the role of Parliament is to pick the destination. If you disagree with that then it can go back to the people, but all options need to be on the ballot (aside from Remain).

2. I don't think all leave voters are ignorant, but I do think they put overabundance of faith in political figures to honest and credible. That clearly did not happen in the referendum and as such I don't think you can consider the much of the electorate to be rational actors. I don't expect people to be well versed in the nuance and intricacies of Trade Law, Constitutional Law and EU Law, but I do expect it to be fully explained to them objectively. The country was sold a lie, which was championed or went broadly unchallenged by equally inept scrutiny from the media and, voices of experts and impartiality were given equal standing to people that want to profit from greater deregulation and reduced individual freedoms.
 
Agree with you on that. In fact I'd take it further back to when Cameron first promised onelol

But seriously that's one of my main issues with a second referendum. I can't see how you could come up with a set of questions that would engage the whole electorate, apart from the obvious one which we have already established as being too vague.

We are stuck between a rock and a hard place. May has at last tried to reach out for a crossparty agreement so that is a start, but at the end of the day if they can come up with something they can agree on and then put it back to the people the main problem goes away quickly. People aren't going to be happy one way or another but if they say these are the terms, leave with x or stay, whatever wins is put into law the next day then people should accept it. None of this best of 3 malarkey.

This way it gets round the whole they didn't know what they voted for argument. Everyone knows what they will be doing so people can't cry about it afterwards. I would be even happy if no deal was put before the people.

Perhaps a twin question referendum at the same time as 3 options would be unfair as it splits the leave votes:

Do you want to leave or remain? If leave wins, with a deal or no deal?
 
Written by James Slack who is now Downing Street Press Secretary :rolleyes:

Well there we are, independent as the BBC.

Another thing the malevolent elitist press peddle now is the concept that people knew what they were voting for in the referendum, utter nonsense and frankly a lie, As highlighted in this montage of interviews’ and alike leading up to the vote, from prominent campaigners both leave and remain.

 
I do not parrot anyone. I have dealt with these people for many years and understand just how they view and treat the average citizen....
Who have you dealt with because 'these people' doesn't really offer any insight.

Given numerous 'im alright jack' posts from you in this thread, im.not sure that you are qualified to talk on behalf if the 'average citizen' either.
 
Our politicians are probably the weakest and most useless I have seen in my life. Since we entered the EU they have had a free ride always able to point at Brussels and blame the EU. Meanwhile the civil service keep gold plating every Eu diktat, and suggest we need this or that because of EU law. Once we are out they will have to perform or be replaced....

Well thats one reason I voted to stay. Everyone of those MPs you hate sold an absolute pup to leavers, using that exact tactic. Blame the EU for everything, even though most of it isnt actually true.

Enough lapped it up, and we are where we are. But you expect us to believe that a reason you voted to leave was to improve the quality of British MPs? Sure it was.
 
Our politicians are probably the weakest and most useless I have seen in my life. Since we entered the EU they have had a free ride always able to point at Brussels and blame the EU. Meanwhile the civil service keep gold plating every Eu diktat, and suggest we need this or that because of EU law. Once we are out they will have to perform or be replaced....
I'm not sure anything you have said in that post is a sensible option for leaving.

You're advocating for a system that gives greater control to these people...
 
The problem with these vague posts is that you don't know who they are directed at. As it directly follows a post of mine in which I said I was against a second referendum, I'll assume I am one of the ones it is directed towards. If so, please tell me where I have said that going against the initial referendum is dangerous fro democracy.
You probably aren't going to believe me on this but I didn't read a single post in this thread before my post and I rarely read this thread because it's hard to keep up with the volume of posts.

I was inspired by a tweet from Piers Morgan. And if it was dangerous for Democracies to change their minds then beer would still be banned in America and May would be prime minister forever. We vote periodically for a reason. I assume you agree with that.
 
While Leave was not defined on the ballot paper, it most certainly was within the Government document sent to every household.

I don’t have any problem with a referendum that was between Mays deal and No Deal. We voted to leave, so I have no problem with a vote on which type of Leave we should have.

No deal only comes off the table once it becomes law. I certainly would put the death penalty to a referendum and the only reason it never will be is because once again the elite must be obeyed........
Brilliant! And that is why referendums are wrong, in that they hand control to the mob as opposed to elected representatives. In your world the Birmingham 6, the Guidford 4, Barry George etc would be murdered by the state despite being innocent. At least MPs debate and weigh up arguments for and against before deciding laws. Imagine your dad being hanged for murder Pete, and being declared innocent 20 years later. How would you feel about capital punishment then?

Off topic I know, but I had to respond to such a mad statement. Sorry mods et al.
 
Agree with you on that. In fact I'd take it further back to when Cameron first promised onelol

But seriously that's one of my main issues with a second referendum. I can't see how you could come up with a set of questions that would engage the whole electorate, apart from the obvious one which we have already established as being too vague.
You could go down the indicative vote proposed options.
 
Brilliant! And that is why referendums are wrong, in that they hand control to the mob as opposed to elected representatives. In your world the Birmingham 6, the Guidford 4, Barry George etc would be murdered by the state despite being innocent. At least MPs debate and weigh up arguments for and against before deciding laws. Imagine your dad being hanged for murder Pete, and being declared innocent 20 years later. How would you feel about capital punishment then?

Off topic I know, but I had to respond to such a mad statement. Sorry mods et al.
Jesus, let's not bring the death penalty debate in here as well lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top