OK, here's one... Scenario: We discuss with the EU parliament and the individual governments for the next 12-18 months over what our relationships with the EU and it's nations will look like post-EU. All of the unknowns (basically everything related to the negotiations) demonstrate a clear disadvantage to the UK, which cannot be twisted by those who would have us leave irrespective of the cost or consequences. Taking us out of the EU on known grossly unfair terms would be foolhardy. In that scenario, I would expect that the Government either reject the terms and not trigger Article 50, or else return to the people with a clear choice - stay as we are or accept the known, actual cost of leaving.
You're calling people naive, and at the same time, suggesting the referendum result can be ignored by Parliament. Have you any concept what it would do to this country and its tradition of democracy if Parliament stuck two fingers up at the 52% that voted out?
You have singularly FAILED to respond to my question. A scenario is no argument. I could counter with a completely contradictory scenario. It still wouldn't convince anyone that a re-vote should be conducted. Please, give me a coherent reason to back you.
Well, as I recall, it was to remain or leave the EU. The semantics of the terms of leaving are of no consequence. Neither were the terms of remaining.
Ok. I am not going to contribute to this anymore. It seems pointless. Those of you who want a re-vote have had a chance to convince me why we should have one and no one has taken up the opportunity. I must assume that there is no coherent argument. No hard feelings on my part. Good luck in your ambitions.
Been offline for the best part of a month or more due to setting up our new offices in guess where? Yep - Good old UK - of all the places this Danish company wanted to locate to - yep Engalnd. It really does appear that now the dust is settling a little bit, that it is Europe that has that fear factor. All those doomsayers from Europe are now more concerned with how can they maintain the gravy train profits. I'm afraid to say that on the flipside, very little is going to change in UK either - I'm feeingl a little too smug at the moment as I also quoted the thought that there would in all probability be more change through staying rather than leaving.
Of course a scenario is an argument. You asked why a further vote could be needed, and I described exactly why one might be required. If you don't want to accept genuine answers to questions you post, they why post the question in the first place?
Are you seriously saying that you'd rather the country walked into a known crisis than remain in the EU? If so, please give your reasons for doing so.
I'm pointing out that the referendum result is not, and never will be, legally binding. Read into that whatever rose- or crap-tinted view you like, however it's still true.
Not so. I posted an opposing view, and rather than debate it, you chose to ignore it. I can see why you voted Leave now.
Are you aware that for 1000 years before the EU raised its head, this country was a hugely successful and worldwide trading nation? And that other countries make a fine living without being part of that political block? And that we continue to be a huge and thriving economy (particularly compared to some of the basket cases in the EU) You have an incredibly blinkered view that an apocalypse is coming, when virtually all the Remain scaremongering has disappeared to dust.
It's meaningless to all but the five or six remaining Lib Dems and David Lammy, who all have their heads stuck up there arses, and refuse to see the damage that would be done to the country if they ever tried it on
The referendum was not binding on Parliament. The government cannot invoke Article 50 without a Parliamentary debate on it and a vote. I expect them to do that and vote to invoke Article 50. They aren't brave enough to do anything else even if they believe its a bad idea. It doesn't help anyones case to keep harping on about "democratic decisions" and "the will of the people". Whatever some of you think is or is not binding, this referendum never was binding and is not binding now. It has enabled us all to tell Parliament the answer to a simple question. The next step is whether or not our MPs feel they should abide by the result or not. I expect them to debate and vote to invoke Article 50. Only then, can official discussions with the EU begin. They won't officially talk to us until we've told them officially we're intending to leave. We won't know what they're prepared to offer (or not) until that point is reached. Unofficial discussions are just that. If we find ourselves in a difficult place as a result of those negotiations, it will be too late to change our mind and ask to stay after all. That's why we need to consider how and when we do it very carefully indeed.
You want to take us back to the Middle Ages? You want to take us back to slavery, Empire building through military conquest, and the Plague? It's a different world now. It's an incredibly different world to 40 years ago, let alone a thousand. I'm frankly amazed you don't acknowledge that.
