Trouble is, they can simply keeping voting it down in Parliament. And thats the point: keep going til you get the right answer... Do we really want to have the again for the next 10 yrs?!
Technically the MP's could endlessly keep holding motions to allow referendums on the same subject. I really don't think they would though. The country does seem torn between leaving and remaining. The referendum campaigns on both sides included deliberatly misleading information. If the majority having had two years to think it over still want to leave the EU so be it. Equally if they have changed their minds who has the right to deny them?
Okay you still haven't answered the question. I'll put it another way Lets say it goes to vote 2, remainers win so we are one all Brexiteers then say, hey, they had another go so we want one to, so best of three does it go to best of three? it should do as the remainers had an extra go say brexit wins again so 2-1 remainers say hey we were allowed another go before and brexiteers just had another go so we want another go How long does that sillyness continue? and given up until brexit, the democratic majority vote worked but the losing side have now decided it doesn't. what is to stop every single democratic vote from town councillor to mp selection and any bill passed in parliament going through the best of three, best of 5 etc etc?
no it's not fin. Because you have been too focused on the them versus us, you have forgotten the democracy aspect and the democratic vote system. At what point do you stop when the side you voted for doesn't get their own way, according to remainer theory, you keep going until you get a remain vote, as you are trying to do with the indi vote. At some juncture you have to admit everything is on hold because vote upon vote upon vote is now in play.
Noobie the entire premise of the rules of our country/ democracy allow for the changing of all laws. This is not anything new or unusual.
Not really, the remainer cause fits in with the short term view, not looking beyond just wanting to have a re-vote. the consequences for democracy could be quite destructive Instead of personal comments could you answer? democratic majority work worked uptil indi 1, the snp want to ignore the scots people on the scottish vote, if they lose indi 2 will they ask for indi 3 Brexit, same scenario at what point does it stop so it can be acted upon or is the aim of those that lose, to keep the country in a political coma till they get their own way could you answer who decides when a vote stops being a vote so it can be acted upon?
at what point does it stop so it can be acted upon or is the aim of those that lose, to keep the country in a political coma till they get their own way could you answer who decides when a vote stops being a vote so it can be acted upon? in our country, the people.
When fin? if like brexit, like indi, every democratic vote can now be challenged and the minority side asks for a re-run, when do the re-runs stop?
when you win the argument. i dont think you have one the argument. by you i also mean the uk Parliament, as well as the gov. but they are fully sovereign now, not everywhere mind. so its up to them.
Okay, let me rephrase it a way I might get an actual answer from you rather than circles. Say the snp had won the indi 1 vote, those against it said within 18 months and before it was acted upon, we want another vote as we now know what that vote means would you say , (1) aye crack on, (2) we had the vote and you can't change it before it has even been acted upon or (3) sure but if you win then we want best of 3?
And the bloody switch on my kettle is buggered, you flick it on and it just starts to get going but as soon as you're walking away it flicks off again Then you stand there expecting it to do it and of course it doesn't Damn this Brexit Kettle
ok but i aint gonna argue much if any on the points i am gonna raise on this thread. and for you to understand yer gonna have to accept that the uk is a union, not a single entity. its hard to compare the two reffs. brexit is (allegedly) about making the uk gov more powerful indi is about making the people more powerful. there's an unsustainable (if yer looking for a united uk) democratic deficit in the uk. the uk's wealth and its population is pulled to the south, the uk get what the south wants. not grievance, fact. its also hard to compare the two in terms of how they where conducted. the less partisan, along with the world organizations have said, the YES campaign set the benchmark, it was a relatively peaceful, engaging and awakening experience. despite every dirty trick, it did us no harm to our reputation abroad. it put us on the world stage in a good way. the figures bare that out. on the whole the country did us proud. a nasty nationalism awoke during brexit, civic nationalism took hold during the YES campaign. again the figures and comments from abroad bare that out. can you honestly say the same can be said about brexit? its also hard to compare it terms of management. we have a united, disciplined, pretty much scandal free competent gov and Parliament, most of the talent and visionaries in Parliament are on the YES side. i think its fair to say most successful people are of an independent mind. brexit was always gonna turn out this way. a divided gov let alone parliament. most would have voted tory in 2015 not believing leave would of won, most who voted green or snp in the hope that yes would win, so the people are united with the partys and gov also. we had a plan the uk gov had none. its almost impossible to compare the two, if the outcome of yes winning was like the outcome of the present leave vote scenario?. hmm not sure. apart from a handful of thugs in George square, i dont believe the out comes of a YES vote would be similar. so in my scenario where i am in no doubt what so ever of a brighter future. i would take 50%+1.
re brexit? i need more options. 1,2 or 3 dont cover it. it the current climate, i would say a rerun, but its not us you need to convince. we voted remain.
I asked you Say the snp had won the indi 1 vote, those against it said within 18 months and before it was acted upon, we want another vote as we now know what that vote means would you say , (1) aye crack on, (2) we had the vote and you can't change it before it has even been acted upon or (3) sure but if you win then we want best of 3?
