yip, i seen that and i know where your going with it. but you cant compare the two. firstly, lets not forget i am a no to yes voter and consider myself to be of a pragmatic nature. if we had won the vote, but the gov was divided with a pro no majority in parliament with an indi movement where a good proportion displayed what we now see as a result of the brexit vote, with a shift to the right gaining momentum i would be inclined to nip the feckers in the bud and call another reff. but the opposite was/ is true re the YES movement. its a different ballgame altogether.
Actually you can fin as both are U.K. democratic votes and my question was also at what point do you stop challenging that vote to a point, that you are not in a stagnating political coma with no one enacting on the reason for the vote. your continual avoidance of that gives me the answer I knew you would but highlights how many remainers do not look beyond , mwah we lost, let's do it again and if we win then we shut the doors on multiple votes on the same question after we win. It's that sudden dislike of democratic votes unless they are in your favour highlights the problem is not so much the issue, but the picking and choosing buffet lunch style of when you feel democractic votes are valid The thing that has changed is since 2014, some people have lost their shit when democratic votes don't go their way and want democracy to change when it suits them.
Actually you can fin as both are U.K. democratic votes wrong. the rest well, it would be more productive to agree to disagree on the interpretation of a fair and functioning democracy.
When the uk is split on political dilemma's they go for the middle ground. It pleases very few and totally alienates very few. Had the vote been more decisive (both Brexit and Sco Indi) it would have settled it for longer. It's hard for an MP to vote against something 75% of the population voted for but not so hard when it's nearer 50/50 or if your own constituency voted the same as the MP wants to. The problem we have now is that after 2 years of dragging our Govmnt to this point in time, so many people are sick of it that they just want an end, even be it a compromise wise end. For Brexit to be a true Brexit in the simplistic in/out way it was touted on the vote sheet, it needed to happen 18 months ago whilst it had more momentum. The moment Gove stabbed Johnson in the back and we got May, that was out the window. It's like Israel appointing Goebels as their minister for Jewish advancement and wondering why you then went backwards.
Noobie, you and other Brexiters overlook what a lot of people want. That is to influence HOW Brexit will look. NOT another vote on in or out. Your determined to label all remainers as only having one agenda, just not so. Most people have moved on,both sides, not as you think wanting repeat referendum infinitum! Just a shot at a democratic decision on how Brexit will look.
Dastardly EU stealing our time...and daylight...who elected them to do that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45366390
Dastardly EU stealing our time...and daylight...who elected them to do that? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45366390
Not quite, often the debates clearly indicate some, or extreme most of the time but I get your point. Not looking to influence anything other than to ask the vote as was the question on the ballot paper, leave. I wouldn't be as convinced as yourself that most on the remain side have moved on given the amount who seem to be asking for another vote of some kind to either overide the vote or stimey it in negotiations. on the hour change, Junker just wants the bars to stay open later
So Druncker says "believe that in future, summer time should be year-round, and that's what will happen".The Scots have been among the most vociferous in maintaining day light saving. Maybe Druncker simply thinks it means more happy hours to imbibe?
The country voted for Leave, with a fair chunk of the electorate happy to go with the majority, so a good majority were in favour of the result or at least, had no objections. After that, it is down to the Government to act in the country's best interests. This is nothing unusual, they are supposed to do that, day in and day out. You could argue that the Government is NOT acting in the best interests of the country, with regard to any particular handling of Brexit, but you can argue that for any important issue - healthcare, education, law & order, defence. Thus the argument that we get a say on any Brexit deal is null, as it equally applies to every important aspect of government. If you argue for a Brexit deal referendum, you argue in favour of a Swiss model of government, referenda on a regular basis, for every important decision that Government might made. Yes, you do. No, really - you do. The Brexit vote - stay in the EU or leave - resulted in a Leave vote. The country either leaves the EU - that is, the UK government has the ultimate say in running the affairs of the country - or it gives up its democratic aspirations, such as they are. There are no shades of grey here - you aren't a tiny bit pregnant and you aren't a tiny bit part of the EU. The wriggle room, post-Brexit vote, lies in deals. If the deals resemble WTO rules, we have left the EU. If the deals entail any form of EU control over government policy, we haven't left the EU. It's as simple as that. Yes, it is. Government doing deals is the reason why we elect them - so we don't have to examine the deals ourselves. Either you allow government to do those deals, or you don't allow them to do any deals on your behalf. Welcome to the Revolution. This stuff is so fucking easy, even I figured it out. The fact that the government appears not to, tells me that something else is going on. The optimist in me says that the confusion and foolishness displayed by the UK government in the face of Brexit negotiations is a smoke-screen and hides a canny bargaining strategy. The realist in me says that the confusion meant to soften people up, wear them down - a smoke-screen to disguise the fact that the electorate are going to get fucked over by gravy-train Westminster - yet again. What is difficult about any of this?
I saw this on Galileo yesterday. So the EU offers us access to a system to which we've been a major contributor towards and which should never have been part of any negotiations. They have been playing hardball for 2 years telling us we can't have this or that, now the drip feeding of seeming acts of benevolence in the hope that people won't see through it and to "soften us up". Expaect to see news that they are prepared to let UK plans fly without hinderance soon, even through they never had any intention to stop them and could never enforce the empty threat. The trouble is, Theresa the appeaser has bowed down to every 'non' from Barnier instead of telling him to take a hike on the 1st day of negotiations.
i learned something new today, thats two days on the trot. the EU has a common foreign policy which no doubt explains our involvement in the middle east and all the problems that brings. EU cvnts. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/arch...-uk-embassy-to-move-to-jerusalem-post-brexit/
My source tells me that Craig Murray's source in this is a wooden spoon. My source is pretty reliable.
you have a source? is it the same source that pats you on the head after tucking you in and tells you everything is gonna be ok?. aww cute.
My source tells me that Craig Murray's source can jam itself up your jacksy : o ) Not entirely sure I believe that, mind. 40% sure : o D
ffs, i am fully on side now. gees a brake man. look, the EU is interfering in British foreign policy. wtf are we letting em do that?
