Saw this elsewhere. Britain, some time in the future, a man is heard saying; “Then there was the time, in 2018, when I served as Brexit Secretary, from Friday to Monday, and I had only popped in to read the meter”.
I really hope not. I don’t agree with either, so probably wouldn’t bother voting. I still don’t see why so many seem to be hell bent on self destruction. Pretty much all the evidence makes it clear that Brexit, of any kind, will damage this country, yet people still want to do it.
did we do a Brexit vote on here in 2016? Now we're all fully in the know (not) if we did one now what would the the options be apart from IN or OUT?
I see where you’re coming from and have some sympathy for your view. However I’d be really afraid of the style and helpfulness of the debate should it be considered. Too many politicians are presenting ideas and opinions only with their own interest and ambition in mind. Business cannot deal with uncertainty like this and the vacuum created by yet more delay, I’m afraid, will create the most unfavourable conditions in which to provide a stable level of jobs and investment.
Do you think, purely from a business point of view, that May's deal ticks enough boxes to be considered a reasonable outcome?
If a second referendum changed the outcome, then Brexiteers couldn’t complain because it is still the people voting.
The UN has finished it’s investigation into how austerity has been affecting the people. The government disagrees with it’s findings, oddly enough.
Somehow don’t see that happening............a different vote yes......but not a repeat of what we’ve already had........I think the best the stayers are going to get is maybe a vote on the soft exit or out completely.
Oh no, the deal as it currently is looks dead already. I meant another referendum on staying or leaving.
It looks, going by this, that even at this desperate hour, May was trying to set up a deal that would seriously damage/undermine the Labour election manifesto. Party before people. Always.
I think another vote - stay or leave - is all we can hope for for the future of the country. If we leave on 29th March it will be a hard Brexit as no way is May's plan getting through parliament. Please bookmark this everyone as a reminder for this time next year when we have high prices, higher unemployment, higher inflation etc. We will still have migrants in jobs and still have an underfunded NHS. Only with Brexit it will all be a lot worse. The total tosh that was given my the leavers in the run up to the referendum will be shown as that...tosh. Maybe I should get off the fence and tell you all what I really think
We need the Conservative party to fracture in two, with the Conservative base favouring reform, good sense and realism and for Mogg and his acolytes (hard Brexiteers) sent packing. So be it if it involves a "civil" war.
if it was the result of the referendum a soft brexit would obviously get through parliament. i dont see any reason to remove it from the vote.
theres no reason not to put remain on it if theres going to be a vote anyway. only excuse for not having a second is that people don't want to be voting all the time as it takes time and effort to make the right choice but you lose that excuse if you're having a vote anyway. Would be no excuse for remain not to be on it, it would just be an affront to democracy.
I really can’t see how as we have already had that vote..........you would be voting on the options left. The affront to democracy would be to have the in or out again as that has already been done. The vote was carried for out.....so the next best option that I can see is the soft stay in. But you may have different opinion on that. It’s a fact though we can’t just keep voting until you get the majority you want can we??
so you think we we should just never have another general election again because weve already had one? and yes we can because thats how democracy works. its why constitutional changes often require a super majority. you need to keep having votes but you cant continuously be changing your mind on expensive decisions. so you need to increase the threshold, not stop people voting. Youve seen theres a problem but you've got what the problem is wrong which is why youve suggested a tyranical solution of removing peoples rights to democracy rather than simply ensuring that the electorate arent wavering in their decision when making big changes.
