Re:3rd referendum

[Borg Refinery]

Well I will say ir openly
I have sat back and seen the way the Eurozone is going in the hands of the EU
For decades, we have poured billions into shoring up the basket case economies of the EU's less than amazing members and they are dragging us down i nto a cesspit.

I DO think that economic trouble next year and maybe for some years after will be WELL worth it to ensure my grand-daughter is not forced to pour the fruits of her labour into these basket cases.

It's an honest argument, needless to say it seems laughable but it is honest.

Another one which Pro Veritas (if you remember him) said was that leaving the EU will mean there's no scaoegoat for the govt to blame things on anymore. That's the best argument anyone has come up with for leaving so far.

Who wants more fat incompetent overfed bucks and bureaucraps pissing things up and gubbering on endlessly, yeah I can understand that argument. I don't agree but it makes sense logically.

Javert is just sore the LD's didnnt rule with an iron fist with their patronizing we know best liberal demonrat bollocks, now backs Starmer when it's useful to.

[johnofgwent]

What I mean is that I have spoken to people (I don't think on this forum but elsewhere) who openly said that they didn't care if the whole UK economy was trashed and everybody lost their jobs as it would be worth it to leave the EU, and they would be ok as they had their pension already.

I also remember the infamous yougov poll which reported that more than half of Tory voters would think Brexit was still worth it even if it meant their children or someone from their family losing their job.

I'm not claiming that you are like that.

Well I will say ir openly
I have sat back and seen the way the Eurozone is going in the hands of the EU
For decades, we have poured billions into shoring up the basket case economies of the EU's less than amazing members and they are dragging us down i nto a cesspit.

I DO think that economic trouble next year and maybe for some years after will be WELL worth it to ensure my grand-daughter is not forced to pour the fruits of her labour into these basket cases.

[Thomas]

You know Javert I sometimes think you unfairly get a hard time on here,but then you post....well it's there for all to see,and don't retort like this as though we are all a bit stupid self centred people,I remember your mate beebly not that long after the referendum complaining leaving the eu would affect roaming on mobile and therefore causing problems liaising with his friends when on piste.

I told him at the time that was no good reason not to leave the eu and if it interfered with his skiing go buy some walkie talkies.

javert gets a hard time cromwell because we can all see through his utter pish and so deserves it.

Did you see his anti democratic spin when talking to me yesterday about another scot indy ref? 50+1 % wont be enough according to javert .

People like him think they are snootily superior to the rest of us and above the rules the rest of us have to abide by in society.

We have seen it time and again  , when anti democrats like javert try and stitch up the world in their favour , and people lose trust in democracy then chaos and bloodshed follow.

I have no time for him.

[Thomas]

The argument that a referendum can't be re-run until the original result has been implemented is a persuasive one and seems logical.

It doesn't seem to tally though with the recent political events in many countries, where many U turns have been done on all sorts of policies by governments before the original policy was implemented, not only in the UK, but also in other countries.

Doesnt matter a feckin jot what allegedly happend in other countries or what hasnt. You said it yourself its persuasive and logical , and what matters is how the voting public view it. To be honest javert , we are now running out of things to say on the subject , we have been over it so many times now its getting boring.

In your own mind , you can convince yourself its the right thing to do overturning democracy when you dont like the result , you wont convince me or many others though.

I tried to imagine the scenario where there was a 3 question referendum.

1) In hindsight, was the UK correct to leave the EU?  Yes/No

2) Should the UK continue with it's plan to leave the EU?  Yes/No

3) Should the UK plan to rejoin the EU in the next 10 years?  Yes/No

Now if the results of that referendum were
1) Yes 40 No 60
2) Yes 60 No 40
3) Yes 60 No 40

In this case, for sure it would be democratically proven that @Thomas and @cromwell and @Nick are correct.

However, if I imagine an alien race looking down on the earth and looking at this decision, and given the huge additional cost and complexity of rejoining later rather than simply no leaving, they would certainly make a note to wipe the human race of their list of intelligent species.

What this would fundamentally mean is that the 12% of people who changed their mind as compared to the original result, agree that the 40$ of people who still want to leave the EU are entitled to their prize, even though the majority of people don't want it anymore, and even though it will be reversed later at even greater cost.  Or to put another way, those 12% are frightened that the 40% might beat them up if they don't get what they want.

I also then imagine the case of a new referendum deciding to remain or rejoin the EU, and then Nigel Farage going to court to claim that the result is invalid because the first referendum of 2016 overrides the second one.  I'm certain he would lose.

yawn double yawn.

When you take away trust and any belief in democracy , wether its simple referrendums on  a yes no answer and 50+1 % majority , chaos ensues. You can think out any scenario you like it doesnt change events.

For these reasons, I am still completely satisfied in my own opinion that theoretically, any democratic decision, even a referendum, can be reversed by a subsequent referendum, and that this would not be anti democratic in principle

we have answered how anti democratic this principle of never ending referendums without implemeting the previous result till you get the answer you want. Its a nonsense.

Even having said this , what you still cant answer is over the last four years you have had numerous opportunities to get a party elected to hold a second referendum undemocrtically to cancel the result of the first and you couldnt manage it.

Even people who voted remain in 2016 told you they voted tory last decemebr to get brexit done as they were sick of anti democratic remainers whingeing non stop about losing in 2016.

What was it 5 defeats in various elections and a referendum since 2015? You simply dont hold a majority opinion on the matter javert , and literally you are standing in a darkened room shouting nonsense at yourself.

Not to mention if you think about the damage you are doing your prospects of arguing for a second referendum in the future...........coming across as an anti democrat and bad loser is never a good look .

[cromwell]

The argument that a referendum can't be re-run until the original result has been implemented is a persuasive one and seems logical.

It doesn't seem to tally though with the recent political events in many countries, where many U turns have been done on all sorts of policies by governments before the original policy was implemented, not only in the UK, but also in other countries.

There was also a referendum in Switzerland which reversed a previous referendum which hadn't been fully implemented, and the world did not end due to this disgraceful denial of democracy.

I tried to imagine the scenario where there was a 3 question referendum.

1) In hindsight, was the UK correct to leave the EU?  Yes/No

2) Should the UK continue with it's plan to leave the EU?  Yes/No

3) Should the UK plan to rejoin the EU in the next 10 years?  Yes/No

Now if the results of that referendum were
1) Yes 40 No 60
2) Yes 60 No 40
3) Yes 60 No 40

In this case, for sure it would be democratically proven that @Thomas and @cromwell and @Nick are correct. 

However, if I imagine an alien race looking down on the earth and looking at this decision, and given the huge additional cost and complexity of rejoining later rather than simply no leaving, they would certainly make a note to wipe the human race of their list of intelligent species.

What this would fundamentally mean is that the 12% of people who changed their mind as compared to the original result, agree that the 40$ of people who still want to leave the EU are entitled to their prize, even though the majority of people don't want it anymore, and even though it will be reversed later at even greater cost.  Or to put another way, those 12% are frightened that the 40% might beat them up if they don't get what they want.

I also then imagine the case of a new referendum deciding to remain or rejoin the EU, and then Nigel Farage going to court to claim that the result is invalid because the first referendum of 2016 overrides the second one.  I'm certain he would lose.

For these reasons, I am still completely satisfied in my own opinion that theoretically, any democratic decision, even a referendum, can be reversed by a subsequent referendum, and that this would not be anti democratic in principle.

In any case, it actually doesn't matter because we have already left the EU and as far as I understand nothing can stop the hard Brexit that will happen on 1st January because it's already legally baked in.

You know Javert I sometimes think you unfairly get a hard time on here,but then you post....well it's there for all to see,and don't retort like this as though we are all a bit stupid self centred people,I remember your mate beebly not that long after the referendum complaining leaving the eu would affect roaming on mobile and therefore causing problems liaising with his friends when on piste.

I told him at the time that was no good reason not to leave the eu and if it interfered with his skiing go buy some walkie talkies.

[Javert]

The argument that a referendum can't be re-run until the original result has been implemented is a persuasive one and seems logical.

It doesn't seem to tally though with the recent political events in many countries, where many U turns have been done on all sorts of policies by governments before the original policy was implemented, not only in the UK, but also in other countries.

There was also a referendum in Switzerland which reversed a previous referendum which hadn't been fully implemented, and the world did not end due to this disgraceful denial of democracy.

I tried to imagine the scenario where there was a 3 question referendum.

1) In hindsight, was the UK correct to leave the EU?  Yes/No

2) Should the UK continue with it's plan to leave the EU?  Yes/No

3) Should the UK plan to rejoin the EU in the next 10 years?  Yes/No

Now if the results of that referendum were
1) Yes 40 No 60
2) Yes 60 No 40
3) Yes 60 No 40

In this case, for sure it would be democratically proven that @Thomas and @cromwell and @Nick are correct. 

However, if I imagine an alien race looking down on the earth and looking at this decision, and given the huge additional cost and complexity of rejoining later rather than simply no leaving, they would certainly make a note to wipe the human race of their list of intelligent species.

What this would fundamentally mean is that the 12% of people who changed their mind as compared to the original result, agree that the 40$ of people who still want to leave the EU are entitled to their prize, even though the majority of people don't want it anymore, and even though it will be reversed later at even greater cost.  Or to put another way, those 12% are frightened that the 40% might beat them up if they don't get what they want.

I also then imagine the case of a new referendum deciding to remain or rejoin the EU, and then Nigel Farage going to court to claim that the result is invalid because the first referendum of 2016 overrides the second one.  I'm certain he would lose.

For these reasons, I am still completely satisfied in my own opinion that theoretically, any democratic decision, even a referendum, can be reversed by a subsequent referendum, and that this would not be anti democratic in principle.

In any case, it actually doesn't matter because we have already left the EU and as far as I understand nothing can stop the hard Brexit that will happen on 1st January because it's already legally baked in.

[Borg Refinery]

If that's how you want to interpret it, mr professional psychiatrist.

[Sheepy]

What that Starmer is a smarmy c^^t who is am amateur psychologist?

[Borg Refinery]

You would know.

 

[Sheepy]

Very true Dyno, politics is full of them, backed by amateur psychology.

[Borg Refinery]

He's not the only one.

[Sheepy]

Because we want Sir Starmer to look like smarter and and a better choice than Boris
But Sir Starmer is a smarmy c^^t.

[Sheepy]

Ah gotcha, so your patronisation is superior to others' patronisation.

Surely if you go down that route then you end up with, as we were saying on the thread about learning disabilities - "only people with top degrees from Oxbridge/ Harvard/Princeton etc are entitled to an opinion".

That renders everyone's opinion on here invalid. I only know a small handful of people who attended those types of places and do you know what's ironic?

..They aren't half as snobby as so many people here who haven't attended such; and who don't have prestigious degrees. But hey what do I know, I'm not qualified to comment clearly, as I don't have a top degree from Oxbridge.

Clearly Bojo is so much smarter than all of us which is why he can't answer simple IQ test questions or maths questions on LBC.

So why does Bojo need to be smarter than the rest of us?

[Borg Refinery]

For decades we have had a youth culture in this country and it still pervades so many areas of life. Wisdom arrived at with age is deemed of no value. How arrogant is youth!

Patronising? Perhaps but I am just repaying years or being patronised by those who pretend that second rate degrees makes them superior.

Ah gotcha, so your patronisation is superior to others' patronisation.

Surely if you go down that route then you end up with, as we were saying on the thread about learning disabilities - "only people with top degrees from Oxbridge/ Harvard/Princeton etc are entitled to an opinion".

That renders everyone's opinion on here invalid. I only know a small handful of people who attended those types of places and do you know what's ironic?

..They aren't half as snobby as so many people here who haven't attended such; and who don't have prestigious degrees. But hey what do I know, I'm not qualified to comment clearly, as I don't have a top degree from Oxbridge.

Clearly Bojo is so much smarter than all of us which is why he can't answer simple IQ test questions or maths questions on LBC.

[Sheepy]

I did tell javert something along those lines sheep but he just said the rules dont apply to him.

They probably don't. what could he know about the code of honour.