Off Topic Brexit

No he isn’t. He’s representative only of or for idiots and cowards.

 

I wish you would be a lot more careful with your choice of words - my Dad mended shoes for a living and now he is dead.

 

Nope, still not in any way representative of the leave campaign. He is representative of the far right, nutcases, nazi lovers and racists. End of story. If you think he is in any way representative of the leave campaign, then I'm afraid you just haven't arsed yourself to listen to leavers over the last 3 years. His story isn't theirs and you should stop insulting everyone by suggesting it is.

 

Absolutely and dontisten to anyone other then me on here because they know nothing tbh

 

Reading the runes of the Euro elections:

Leave no deal: 35%

Unambiguous Remain: 35%

Remain manifesto but maybe not all supporters are remain: 5%

The big fudge parties (Tory and Labour: 25 %

 

So leave no deal it is then

 

Sometimes I think there is a danger in over simplifying things. There are a number of reasons why people voted the way they did. Some for sound reasons and some for not so sound reasons - and I capture both sides into this. I think the biggest dissapointment, to me at least, is those that voted leave because they felt left behind by mainstream politics. I don't dispute that has happened. It has massively and I have so much blame for both parties and years of austerity for this. However, I don't see how a vote to leave changes that. If anything, it will make things worse. Those that struggle now with uncertain and unstable employment, price discrimination and lack of investment in services, will be the ones most likely to be hit if the economy becomes more unstable itself.

 

If you want to implement the will of one third of the people, yes

 

We leave on the best deal we get from EU or no deal whichever of the two which achieves the real referendum result of leaving the EU.

No fudge like May’s where we pretend to leave but don’t. No need for second referendum as that won’t achieve anything but undermine democracy.

 

Nothing like letting the people decide to undermine democracy

 

So how many votes and referenda do you want? Enough until you get the result you want? “The people” haven’t said they want a second referendum just some politicians and some people who didn’t get the result they wanted first time. How much time are you wanting to waste on voting on the same thing before just actually getting on and delivering what we decided to do 3 years ago?

 

Why is everyone hell bent on ruining the country just to make a point.

 

How many votes do I think would be proper ?

Two. One to see if anyone is interested in the general concept of leaving. One to see if they think that what is actually possible is preferable to staying. Same way you would make any serious decision, like selling your house. First you decide whether you want to list it with an estate agent. When the offers are in, you decide whether to accept one. Most people would think it would be dumb to have to choose between bad offers just because you had decided to list your house for sale.

 

You’re now trying to move the goalposts after the event. I can’t remember this being the remain position prior to the first referendum and I voted remain. This has only been introduced after the event by some remainers not for the reasons now being advanced but simply because they lost.

You know fine well there are numerous potential versions of Brexit and the second referendum will simply be an attempt to split that vote so that Brexit doesn’t occur. It hasn’t been the people stopping Brexit it has been the politicians because they don’t want it and never expected the people to vote for it in the first place.

If a second referendum was simply to say which of two or more versions of Brexit should we take then I would support it but not if an option included remain. That would fly against what the people decided to do in the first referendum and that would be undemocratic.

We don’t have a second General Election quickly after a General Election just because politicians promised one thing in a campaign and then didn’t deliver it, so why on this issue when anyone with half a brain could see that Leave campaigners couldn’t guarantee whatever they promised because it would have to be negotiated with an EU that wouldn’t want us to leave on good terms as that could cause a domino effect.

 

Groot for PM!

 

To deal with the last point first, we will have had one general election and two prime ministers since the brexit vote. It's not like I'm suggesting that the issue be re-visited more frequently than other major political events.

As for the rest, you are right: this wasn't the remain position. the remain position was that we had a very nice house and shouldn't be interested in selling. The leave position was that there were lots of better house available. We now know that not all of those houses are available, or indeed ever existed. I would like to know whether the people actually prefer any of the available options to what we have now. The fundamental question is whether you regard what the people wanted 3 years ago as more important than what they want now. I don't. I don't understand how anyone does.

 

Ignoring my stance in regard to democracy being upheld I can tell you my father does. He didn’t vote on economic grounds, he voted on sovereignty reasons. There are a heck of a lot of people who did.

The trouble with your argument is that you claim a second referendum is what “the people” want without any substance or proof to back that claim up. Some people want a second referendum but not to determine the best deal to leave on but to stop Brexit.

Are you prepared to agree a second referendum without an option to remain? If not, how do you on a democratic level sanction remaining when the people in a referendum, which hasn’t been actioned, said as a majority for us to leave. If it’s on the basis that we didn’t know what Brexit we would get why wasn’t that argued at the time prior to the first referendum? Why was the vote to leave or not and not let’s see what deal we will get and then make a final decision later?

Stripped to it’s simplest we voted to leave. We should leave. The default position was “no deal” terms or anything better if we could negotiate it.

 

We have debated this quite a bit. After this post, I am going to stop. This is not an attempt to say that you are not worth talking to. You make interesting points.

With respect to "the people" not having requested a second vote, there is no method for them to do so. Nonetheless, they have created a few. 5 million signatures were received by a petition on the subject. There are arguments about the possibity of multiple signatures. That applies to all online petitions. No leave petition has managed anything similar. Several hundred thousand people marched for a second vote. This is many times the number who have joined any leave March. More people just voted for parties demanding a second vote than those advocating Brexit.

With respect to your second point, on what basis do you say that voters did not intend to see what the best deal we could get was and then decide ? The question they were allowed to vote on was simplistic. The voters were given only the crudest options. That doesn't mean that their intentions were similarly crude. Seeing what the best offer is and then deciding is an elementary negotiating strategy. I think you do the voters a disservice if you assume it was beyond them.

The fact that your father in law regards the will of the people in the past as more sacred than the will of the people now is, meaning no disrespect, a quirk of his personality which should not be allowed to affect my future, or my children's.

Oh, and while the economic argument is one strong factor for remain voters, it is not the essence of the debate. It is for me and many others about embracing the world or rejecting it.

 

Note your position and agree trying to debate over internet is never going to make either of us change our views. Several points you make I could respond to but no point. We just have to agree to respect each other’s stances and hope somehow things get sorted to the satisfaction of the majority not the minority no matter how vocal they may be.

 

The fundamental problem is the single market. After 2 years, it appears that we as a country finally accept the 4 freedoms of the single market are indivisible and intrinsically linked. I.e you can't have freedom for services without free movement of people (the capital). The issue comes down to ending freedom of movement. To do that, you have to leave the single market which will create trade barriers that will inherently have an economic impact. More so than a softer Brexit i.e Efta.