[Politics] Brexit

[dingodan]

It's nothing to do with not liking the result, (although I clearly do not), but it still remains true that some - possibly a lot - who knows, may have changed their minds, after 3.5 years.
Surely we need to know if it still really is what people want?
Seems very democratic, to me.

Have you changed your mind?

 

[birthofanorange]

Next vote will be something like 2055.

Gives you plenty of reading time.

My impression is that you're actually worried about a second referendum, and 3.5 years has been plenty of time for people to make a better informed decision.

Don't you wish to give them the opportunity to do so?

 

[birthofanorange]

Have you changed your mind?

No, not at all, neither have I claimed that I have. What I said was that 'some, possibly a lot - who knows', may have done so.

Let's find out.

 

[The Clamp]

Still in the EU I see. Good, good.

 

[dingodan]

No, not at all, neither have I claimed that I have. What I said was that 'some, possibly a lot - who knows', may have done so.

Let's find out.

So you haven't, but you are sure some have. Why not let them ask for a second vote then.

As for your other post, you will forever say that I am afraid of a second referendum unless I agree that I think we should have one. I don't fear the result, the problem is the principle. You carry out the result of the first, or none of them, ever, will mean anything. Voting itself, won't mean anything.

If we had left by now I'd be much more sympathetic to another vote, probably not so soon, but I'm not opposed to it.

I think it's utter stupidity to call for a vote, implying that you think people should be heard, when you don't want the result of a previous vote to be carried out.

You can't have it both ways. If you want a second vote, then votes matter. Which means you must carry out the leave vote. If you don't want the leave vote carried out, then votes don't matter, so don't bother asking for another one.

 

[Hastings gull]

My take on it would be that the people avoiding the civil intelligent discourse are the leavers.

I raised a similar question a couple of days ago on another forum and actually received a full and cogent answer from someone other than the person I was responding to as to their reasons. I didn't agree with him, or it would not have changed my own mind, but it was reasoned and none of it repeated the more obvious lies from the campaign.

It made a change from some of the combative vitriol that comes out on here.

Perhaps it is just a question of what we want and those with other views seem more combative. Personally, I would have said the opposite as relatively few leavers bother any more due to the abuse. But I know that we are in full agreement when we read reasoned arguments from posters ready to listen to others.

 

[Chicken Run]

"To B's"?

Two B’s then, why did you edit your original post to remove them?

 

[birthofanorange]

Two B’s then, why did you edit your original post to remove them?

I actually and truthfully have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[birthofanorange]

So you haven't, but you are sure some have. Why not let them ask for a second vote then.

As for your other post, you will forever say that I am afraid of a second referendum unless I agree that I think we should have one. I don't fear the result, the problem is the principle. You carry out the result of the first, or none of them, ever, will mean anything. Voting itself, won't mean anything.

If we had left by now I'd be much more sympathetic to another vote, probably not so soon, but I'm not opposed to it.

I think it's utter stupidity to call for a vote, implying that you think people should be heard, when you don't want the result of a previous vote to be carried out.

You can't have it both ways. If you want a second vote, then votes matter. Which means you must carry out the leave vote. If you don't want the leave vote carried out, then votes don't matter, so don't bother asking for another one.

So are you (or not) in favour of asking The People, 3.5 years down the line, having absorbed more of the implications of Leaving/Remaining, if that is still what 'they' want?

 

[dingodan]

So are you (or not) in favour of asking The People, 3.5 years down the line, having absorbed more of the implications of Leaving/Remaining, if that is still what 'they' want?

I can only refer you to my previous post.

Try reading it.

 

[Hastings gull]

So are you (or not) in favour of asking The People, 3.5 years down the line, having absorbed more of the implications of Leaving/Remaining, if that is still what 'they' want?

I thought Dingodan had answered that -he said yes, once the result of the first vote had been implemented, and thus giving value to the principle of voting. Yes, that may be the case that your average punter might be more aware of what is involved, but be honest, this is really only a tactic to try for another vote, hoping fervently that it will bring about your desired result. Should the vote go for remain, then you are of course consistent, aren't you? You would then back a wait of, say, 6 months to have a third vote, so that prospective leave voters can further assess the (dis)advanatages of EU membership.

 

[birthofanorange]

I thought Dingodan had answered that -he said yes, once the result of the first vote had been implemented, and thus giving value to the principle of voting. Yes, that may be the case that your average punter might be more aware of what is involved, but be honest, this is really only a tactic to try for another vote, hoping fervently that it will bring about your desired result. Should the vote go for remain, then you are of course consistent, aren't you? You would then back a wait of, say, 6 months to have a third vote, so that prospective leave voters can further assess the (dis)advanatages of EU membership.

Nope - sorry, but the first vote was far too simplistic and was campaigned on very emotive terms.

A vote on the options that have been suggested, discussed and (hopefully) digested, along with the associated ramifications of Leaving/Remaining, during the past 3.5 years, will certainly be more reflective of the way people feel now. I can't see how you can dispute that?

 

[Hastings gull]

Nope - sorry, but the first vote was far too simplistic and was campaigned on very emotive terms.

A vote on the options that have been suggested, discussed and (hopefully) digested, along with the associated ramifications of Leaving/Remaining, during the past 3.5 years, will certainly be more reflective of the way people feel now. I can't see how you can dispute that?

I see that I am not the only one who appeals to you to read what was written. Again,you may well be right in what you say, but I think you will find that another vote will involve equally emotive terms, if not more so. Significantly, you did not answer my point about a second vote being just an attempt to get your cherished response; now, why would that be, I wonder.

 

[birthofanorange]

I see that I am not the only one who appeals to you to read what was written. Again,you may well be right in what you say, but I think you will find that another vote will involve equally emotive terms, if not more so. Significantly, you did not answer my point about a second vote being just an attempt to get your cherished response; now, why would that be, I wonder.

I make (and have made) no bones about my feelings, and I'd love nothing more than for us to remain.

However, I have stated that I would respect a vote based on a far more informed decision - for that is certainly what it would be - whatever the outcome.

You may choose to not believe that (as Dingodan too), but that's the way it is.

 

[portslade seagull]

So are you (or not) in favour of asking The People, 3.5 years down the line, having absorbed more of the implications of Leaving/Remaining, if that is still what 'they' want?

How many goes do you want to achieve what you believe to be the correct result. ?

 

[birthofanorange]

How many goes do you want to achieve what you believe to be the correct result. ?

It's not a question of 'goes', you silly person. It's a question of basing decisions on the basis of a better understanding, rather than the simplistic 'In/Out' choice given originally.

If it's still the 'Will of the People', so be it, but let's find out.

 

[Hastings gull]

It's not a question of 'goes', you silly person. It's a question of basing decisions on the basis of a better understanding, rather than the simplistic 'In/Out' choice given originally.

If it's still the 'Will of the People', so be it, but let's find out.

The "so be it" may well apply to your good self, and I accept that you are genuine in that respect, if you say so, but I can't help feeling that a second vote resulting in a majority wanting to leave, will be anything but "so be it". Yes, some folk may be better informed, as you suggest, but it would surely just mean that that the same confrontations will occur, just that the pros and cons will be that shade more detailed!

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Perhaps it is just a question of what we want and those with other views seem more combative. Personally, I would have said the opposite as relatively few leavers bother any more due to the abuse. But I know that we are in full agreement when we read reasoned arguments from posters ready to listen to others.

To be honest I tend to steer clear of the BREXIT thread and only dip into it occasionally. The intransigence on both sides depresses me.

 

[portslade seagull]

It's not a question of 'goes', you silly person. It's a question of basing decisions on the basis of a better understanding, rather than the simplistic 'In/Out' choice given originally.

If it's still the 'Will of the People', so be it, but let's find out.

So you basically want another go because you didn't like the result of the 1st one and keep coming up with spurious reasons to support it even though the initial vote offered by Cameron which by the way all remainers were so 100% cocksure of winning they didn't add these basic questions.
They tried 1000s of scare stories though. I'm still not 4.5k a yr worse off though but would be under a Corbyn government

 

[birthofanorange]

The "so be it" may well apply to your good self, and I accept that you are genuine in that respect, if you say so, but I can't help feeling that a second vote resulting in a majority wanting to leave, will be anything but "so be it". Yes, some folk may be better informed, as you suggest, but it would surely just mean that that the same confrontations will occur, just that the pros and cons will be that shade more detailed!

I would still be disappointed by a Leave result, naturally, but I would have the knowledge that people that people have had the time to digest some/a lot of the past 3.5 years worth of information.

It would be churlish of me (or anyone else) to protest about a vote taken now, even if it didn't go 'my' way.