Brexit is a Mess, how do we Fix it.

originally posted by: rigel4
The majority have already voted to Leave...
That is, my friend, the result that counts.

After they implement it, i have no problem with a new vote to rejoin.

Why should in 2016 bind us now? If the majority still want to leave we leave, if not leaving would be undemocratic.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because the whole point of the referendum was to see if the majority of people wanted to leave and then act on that decision.

I fixed that for you.

And if people change their mind before we leave shouldn't we act on that decision and not leave.

No. Not until they have honored the outcome of the previous referendum.

When we had the EU referendum the government (who campaigned to stay in the EU) spent £9 million on leaflets through every letterbox. In that leaflet they clearly stated, and I quote... "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". Now that couldn't be clearer and that is what should happen!

If we have another vote, like you want, then that would make that statement on the £9m leaflets the biggest lie of them all in the EU referendum, and YOU'RE endorsing it.

So even if the majority of people now wanted to stay we should leave because of the wording in a leaflet?

Yeah it's called democracy. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time.

Going against the wishes of the majority would be democracy? I think you may be confused about the meaning.

No. Having a referendum where the government spent £9 million on leaflets which stated "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide", and then the government going through with that promise, would be democracy. Anything else would be anti-democratic, which you're endorsing.

So even if the majority of people want to stay we should leave because of the wording in a leaflet from almost 3 years ago?

That isn't democracy, that's idiotic.

Yes it is democracy because that is what we voted for.
You wouldn't know if the majority of people now would want to stay in the EU without having another vote, which would be anti-democratic, because the first vote hasn't been actioned yet.

You need to suck it up fella.

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: 83Liberty

originally posted by: ScepticScot
Because the whole point of the referendum was to see if the majority of people wanted to leave and then act on that decision.

I fixed that for you.

And if people change their mind before we leave shouldn't we act on that decision and not leave.

No. Not until they have honored the outcome of the previous referendum.

When we had the EU referendum the government (who campaigned to stay in the EU) spent £9 million on leaflets through every letterbox. In that leaflet they clearly stated, and I quote... "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide". Now that couldn't be clearer and that is what should happen!

If we have another vote, like you want, then that would make that statement on the £9m leaflets the biggest lie of them all in the EU referendum, and YOU'RE endorsing it.

So even if the majority of people now wanted to stay we should leave because of the wording in a leaflet?

Yeah it's called democracy. Sorry it didn't work out for you this time.

Going against the wishes of the majority would be democracy? I think you may be confused about the meaning.

No. Having a referendum where the government spent £9 million on leaflets which stated "This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide", and then the government going through with that promise, would be democracy. Anything else would be anti-democratic, which you're endorsing.

So even if the majority of people want to stay we should leave because of the wording in a leaflet from almost 3 years ago?

That isn't democracy, that's idiotic.

Yes it is democracy because that is what we voted for.
You wouldn't know if the majority of people now would want to stay in the EU without having another vote, which would be anti-democratic, because the first vote hasn't been actioned yet.

You need to suck it up fella.

There is no requirement (legally or morally) to action the first vote if it goes against wishes of the majority. How can you possibly argue that having a vote is undemocratic?

a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry fella, you need to suck it up,
The majority voted to leave the EU, and the remainers whined.
Not unexpected though.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry fella, you need to suck it up,
The majority voted to leave the EU, and the remainers whined.
Not unexpected though.

And if the majority now wanted to stay?

originally posted by: ScepticScot
There is no requirement (legally or morally) to action the first vote if it goes against wishes of the majority.

I agree there is no legal requirement but there is a moral and democratic requirement for them to follow through with the referendum results.

How can you possibly argue that having a vote is undemocratic?

I gave my reasoning when I first wrote that comment. You should read more carefully.

Why should in 2016 bind us now? If the majority still want to leave we leave, if not leaving would be undemocratic.

If we had another referendum and the majority decides to stay, then according to your logic, I could demand another referendum 5 minutes later because the majority of people now may want to Leave. That's how stupid your argument is.

Brexit is a Mess, how do we Fix it.

We stick to our principles, and ride it all out. There are wider forces than just the EU in play. Brexit goes against the entire new world order agenda, remember that, it is always in the background, rolling out surreptitiously and insidiously.

I voted for 'Leave' on ideological grounds, because I don't agree with the EU and what it stands for, nor do I accept the new world order agenda which is seeking to centralise all power and control to unelected faceless elitists, who want to homogenise every aspect of the ordinary person's life who will only have a limited form of liberty based on the value of their utility. We are all pretty much at that point now anyway. Your life, your lifestyle, and ultimately your happiness will all be predicated on the level of your personal economy...and that will be controlled by others with a higher personal economy.

Regardless of what consequences Brexit brings, and you can bet that the new world order elitists will seek to punish Britain until it changes its mind and holds another referendum, it is only a part of the NWO agenda, which will ultimately succeed in centralising power and control unto itself. It has already made genuine democracy irrelevant.

You are now told who you can elect, you are presented with choices you would never have opted for. There are no presidents and prime ministers anymore, except in title only...you have NWO elitist managers, and they are not there to govern for the people, but to mange for the elite and their corporate vision.

Brexit is nothing more than a hindrance to their plans, an uncomfortable hiccup, for which Britain will be slapped. Do you really think the elite would allow a country to exercise genuine democracy, and allow the people to elect their own choice? Not a chance. Too much at stake. The elite want managers in place who will oversee and implement their vision, which is why you are handed the choice for who to elect.

Anyone born after 1990 has grown up in a world where their own culture has been heavily diluted, and because of this, they hold no real kinship to their country. What they have is a virtual culture of all cultures assimilated into one homogeneous mess. Culture is what drives nationalism, and Britain's culture is becoming more and more diluted everyday. Yet, the Brexit referendum occurred, and the older generation having far more wisdom and longer foresight saw all this and voted a last 'hurrah' for Britain. Once they die out, Britain is gone.

Fortunately, I won't be around to see it fall into the NWO grip, I and others of my generation will die out, and corporate tyranny will then have its day. The real sadness is that the younger generations will clap and cheer it in, not knowing in their ignorance and naivety what is coming at them. They will not have the experience or the mindset to handle it. They will truly be slaves not knowing that they are slaves to unelected elites. A truly dystopian future awaits them, and they haven't a clue!

a reply to: 83Liberty

Going because the 1st vote hasn't actioned isn't even a remotely valid reason. There is no reason to implement the 1st vote if it's not what the majority want.

We are not talking about 5 minutes but almost 3 years when we actually know the outcome of what we are voting for. Nice slippy slope fallacy however.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry fella, you need to suck it up,
The majority voted to leave the EU, and the remainers whined.
Not unexpected though.

And if the majority now wanted to stay?

Have a referendum to decide terms of exit after we enact the vote to leave the EU.

a reply to: ScepticScot
I'm only using your logic. Who decides if it's 5 minutes of 2 years?

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Sorry fella, you need to suck it up,
The majority voted to leave the EU, and the remainers whined.
Not unexpected though.

And if the majority now wanted to stay?

Have a referendum to decide terms of exit after we enact the vote to leave the EU.

May & co can't even negotiate 1 deal never mind a menu to pick from. We should get a vote to go ahead or not based on the eventual terms.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
a reply to: ScepticScot
I'm only using your logic.

No your not.

a reply to: ScepticScot
Your opinion is all though mate, catch you around, was an interesting thread.

a reply to: ScepticScot
You said if the majority of people change their minds then there should be another vote.
That is YOUR logic.

originally posted by: 83Liberty
a reply to: ScepticScot
You said if the majority of people change their minds then there should be another vote.
That is YOUR logic.

No. there should be another to see if people have changed their mind. Almost 3 years will have lapsed, a lot has changed and we will hopefully know a lot more about what Brexit willill actually entail.

There is no valid reason not to have another vote.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot
Your opinion is all though mate, catch you around, was an interesting thread.

Probably a good time to move on. It's been fun but getting repetitive now.

ScepticScot:

Will happily take a single valid reason for not having a second referendum.

The democratic process is not a 'suck it and see' process. You don't get to re-choose just because you don't like the flavour. Your way is having either side demanding a repeat vote ad nausea, and of course, nobody gets anywhere. Thus, principals and rules were embedded within the democratic process, whereby the people of the country can overturn past democratic results after 4 years, but this is only pertaining to political elections, not referendums where the people decide on a particular subject.

Brexit was a referendum that had been put off and held away from the people since the seventies. They always knew that the majority of British people would vote away from the EU, in all its past guises first chance they got, and so it was the case with the Brexit vote. They had to hold a referendum to make even deeper ties to the EU, but to be honest, they should have held off having it until those born before 1990 had whittled down to less than a majority or had died away. Perhaps, they were trying to rush things and came a cropper?

Whatever. The referendum result must stand on principle and past precedence. To go against it would be perilous! You can see how polarised the country has become. As unlikely it would be, the vociferous polarisation could lead to a form of civil war which would require a military clampdown and draconian legislature to be enacted. British society would change beyond recognition. Then again, it will do so eventually, but not for another 20 or 30 years. In that time scale, we will all see slow incremental changes take effect.

originally posted by: elysiumfire
ScepticScot:

Will happily take a single valid reason for not having a second referendum.

The democratic process is not a 'suck it and see' process. You don't get to re-choose just because you don't like the flavour. Your way is having either side demanding a repeat vote ad nausea, and of course, nobody gets anywhere. Thus, principals and rules were embedded within the democratic process, whereby the people of the country can overturn past democratic results after 4 years, but this is only pertaining to political elections, not referendums where the people decide on a particular subject.

Brexit was a referendum that had been put off and held away from the people since the seventies. They always knew that the majority of British people would vote away from the EU, in all its past guises first chance they got, and so it was the case with the Brexit vote. They had to hold a referendum to make even deeper ties to the EU, but to be honest, they should have held off having it until those born before 1990 had whittled down to less than a majority or had died away. Perhaps, they were trying to rush things and came a cropper?

Whatever. The referendum result must stand on principle and past precedence. To go against it would be perilous! You can see how polarised the country has become. As unlikely it would be, the vociferous polarisation could lead to a form of civil war which would require a military clampdown and draconian legislature to be enacted. British society would change beyond recognition. Then again, it will do so eventually, but not for another 20 or 30 years. In that time scale, we will all see slow incremental changes take effect.

So much wrong with your post it's difficult to know where to start.

The point of referendum was to assess if people wanted to leave the EU. By the time the final deal is known it will have been almost three years since that referendum. The idea that it would be undemocratic to have another vote is absurd.

Your level of knowledge of UK politics is apparent from in your assertion we have elections every 4 years. It's generally good to have at least a basic knowledge of what you are posting about.

The EU didn't even exist in the 70s as leave supporters like to remind us. The referendum on membership of the common market in 75 was a massive victory for staying in and leaving was a fringe concern for years.

The paragraph about military clampdown is just too much drivel to even discuss.

If this is the level the thread has reached its clearly time to follow Grain, sorry Celts, example and move on.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because we should only leave the EU if the majority of people want to.

Which the majority of people voted for when we had a referendum.

Now why not have one?

Because we've already had one.

You still haven't provided a valid reason why the result of the referendum should be ignored and why there should be another vote.

It wasn't fraudulent, it wasn't biased.
No-one has presented a valid or reasoned argument why the result of a referendum should be ignored and not acted upon.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Will absolutely support any campaign to give people a democratic choice. Will you oppose that?

You are the one wanting to deny the implementation of a democratic vote.
The majority of British people voted in a free and democratic ballot to leave the EU, you wish to annul that democratic expression of the Right to Self-Determination for the only reason that your vote was in the minority.

On what other occasion has a second vote ever been required.
Never in 1975.
Never in 2014.
Never in any General Election or other ballot or election.

There is absolutely no legal precedence at all - the will of the people HAS to be acted upon.

It really is so simple.