[Politics] Brexit

[Two Professors]

Yeah I don't think that Watford Zero thought that his poll would solve the Brexit lose/lose nightmare; I think he might of been doing it out of interest...

Interesting.You think Watford thinks?

 

[Stat Brother]

This time I'd vote leave.


It'll be nice to make it a 'best of 3'.

 

[Deleted member 22389]

Don't be utterly stupid.You mean the Army turned out by accident during the Fire strikes caused by the Governments of the time not giving in to union pay demands?Watford Gap is the stupidest poster on here.Stop trying to steal his crown.

I think the Military where called out for the fuel strikes too.

 

[Gazwag]

What would be interesting is if everybody voted the same and with those who had died (obviously) getting no vote and those who are now old enough getting a vote

 

[drew]

I'm a remainer but I don't think you can have a fair vote with three options. If there is another referendum it should be two tiered. First should be straight in or out. Then everyone should vote on chequers (or whatever deal is reached) or no deal. If you have a three options then the leave campaign will argue their vote was deliberately split!

 

[A1X]

I've seen this argument going round.

First referendum was 1975
Second referendum was 2016
It therefore makes sense to have the third referendum in 2057.

Happy now?

Not sure why Remainers have to wait for a specific period of time just because Leavers were too disorganised to get their act together and actually do it.

 

[Giraffe]

I'm a remainer but I don't think you can have a fair vote with three options. If there is another referendum it should be two tiered. First should be straight in or out. Then everyone should vote on chequers (or whatever deal is reached) or no deal. If you have a three options then the leave campaign will argue their vote was deliberately split!

Exactly. We have already one vote on whether to remain or leave. Any second vote should only be on the basis. It is ridiculous to suggest anything else.

Not sure why Remainers have to wait for a specific period of time just because Leavers were too disorganised to get their act together and actually do it.

Dear oh dear. There are no words.

 

[A1X]

You might think a Norway deal the dog's nads,but nobody else does.It was the Government choosing not to give in to the Fire Brigades Union that brought on the strike,requiring Army deployment.Do try to keep up.I,m off up the pub,need a pint after talking to you lot!

I think the Norway deal is the best option if we have to leave, it's clearly a long way inferior a result to actually not leaving in the first place.

Anyway the troop option appears to be off the table anyway, thanks to Government cuts of all things.

[TWEET]1023882596730765313[/TWEET]

 

[lawros left foot]

I've seen this argument going round.

First referendum was 1975
Second referendum was 2016
It therefore makes sense to have the third referendum in 2057.

Happy now?

I’m sorry. I didn’t realise democracy had a statute of limitations.

 

[Giraffe]

I’m sorry. I didn’t realise democracy had a statute of limitations.

The point is you have just had a vote. Shall we just repeat this every two years?! Seriously?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm a remainer but I don't think you can have a fair vote with three options. If there is another referendum it should be two tiered. First should be straight in or out. Then everyone should vote on chequers (or whatever deal is reached) or no deal. If you have a three options then the leave campaign will argue their vote was deliberately split!

We could always add up the two leave options ? (it's just a quick poll before Bozza declares NSC independent of the rest of Britain)

 

[lawros left foot]

The point is you have just had a vote. Shall we just repeat this every two years?! Seriously?

Yep, until we get the result that isn’t as stupid as the last one, we can stop then.

 

[Giraffe]

Yep, until we get the result that isn’t as stupid as the last one, we can stop then.

And there we have it.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I'm a remainer but I don't think you can have a fair vote with three options. If there is another referendum it should be two tiered. First should be straight in or out. Then everyone should vote on chequers (or whatever deal is reached) or no deal. If you have a three options then the leave campaign will argue their vote was deliberately split!

We could always add up the two leave options ? (it's just a quick poll before Bozza declares NSC independent of the rest of Britain)

I'm not sure you could - I think that adding up the 'stay in' and the 'soft' totals is as valid, in many respects.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Yep, until we get the result that isn’t as stupid as the last one, we can stop then.

And there we have it.

Yep. there we have it.

People refusing to stop arguing for what they believe is best for the country, now and in the future.

Ridiculous, eh?

 

[astralavi]

A clarification referendum would seem rational in such circumstances

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm not sure you could - I think that adding up the 'stay in' and the 'soft' totals is as valid, in many respects.

You see, this is what you missed with the appearance of my overly simplistic poll. Everyone can interpret it a different way and claim victory

 

[A1X]

Bye bye NHS

[TWEET]1023842928433737729[/TWEET]

 

[GT49er]

You wouldn't/couldn't have a referendum with three or more options. In or out.

 

[deletebeepbeepbeep]

I was us to crash out to spite all the tedious #fbpe bores on Twitter.