RE:xit?
-
I was talking about the vote in the '70s.
Chris Quinn wrote:
The Prime Minister may have said that he would accept the result, but that is not the same thing. People are learning how much they were lied to by the Leave campaign
There was no leave campaign in the 70s, and the lies during the last referendum were mostly from the remain-camp. I'd like to point out that the world was supposed to end. What people haven't learned is that they do not live in a democracy.
Chris Quinn wrote:
How long must elapse before they can vote again?
You can vote every five minutes for all I care :laugh:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There was no leave campaign in the 70s,
No? How about [United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Kingdom\_European\_Communities\_membership\_referendum,\_1975#No\_campaign\_(National\_Referendum\_Campaign))
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
There was no leave campaign in the 70s,
No? How about [United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975 - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United\_Kingdom\_European\_Communities\_membership\_referendum,\_1975#No\_campaign\_(National\_Referendum\_Campaign))
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
As the wiki states, there was yes and no; not a "leave". And there was the official standpoint of course, as described in the same page. It seems that any opinion that does not favor globalism is officially "wrong".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
If a second referendum is good or bad... daresay that has been discussed enough already. Now I am just wondering: if there is a second national vote with a new result... What should that be called? unbrexit? Brire-enter? Re-xit? :confused:
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
-
If a second referendum is good or bad... daresay that has been discussed enough already. Now I am just wondering: if there is a second national vote with a new result... What should that be called? unbrexit? Brire-enter? Re-xit? :confused:
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
Before you decide how to call it, read this: [Hard Brexiters’ new plan gets A+ for idiocy | John Crace | Politics | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/24/hard-brexiters-new-plan-gets-a-for-idiocy) They obviously try to outsource Brexit too! Pretty sure the results will be as per usual :)
They buy shoes, then they wear them! They make them sound old! Dairy! Dairy!
-
Democracy is when we play elections and referendums. The EU is unelected buerocrats and we will get our 340 mil weekly for the NHS. I bet they will discuss new elections and referendums on March 18th next year.
They buy shoes, then they wear them! They make them sound old! Dairy! Dairy!
What Does Boris Johnson Owe?[^] :-D Now we sit back and wait for the same people who declare the dire predictions of the consequences of leaving to be "lies" because they haven't come true yet to simultaneously declare that Boris owes nothing because we haven't left yet. :laugh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
If a second referendum is good or bad... daresay that has been discussed enough already. Now I am just wondering: if there is a second national vote with a new result... What should that be called? unbrexit? Brire-enter? Re-xit? :confused:
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
Depending on who you ask, either "common sense", or "a betrayal of democracy". Because, as you know, the people voted democratically to leave, so they're not allowed to change their minds until we've actually left. :doh: But whichever side you're on, I'm sure we can agree that our government have demonstrated that they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery that was already having a piss-up, and when you walked through the door, the receptionist asked, "Would you like a free piss-up?" Oh, and you wanted a punny answer. How about "Abouty McAboutFace". :-D
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
As the wiki states, there was yes and no; not a "leave". And there was the official standpoint of course, as described in the same page. It seems that any opinion that does not favor globalism is officially "wrong".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Semantics - The question asked was "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?", so a yes vote was a Remain vote, and a no vote was a Leave vote. It could have been true/false or pink/blue. It was a binary choice. The official standpoint in the most recent referendum was also that they wished to remain, so the results and votes are directly comparable.
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
We have already had a second referendum - I want to know why the democratic decision of the people who voted in the first was not respected[^].
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
Because 1) we were lied to 2) the young - the people most affected - were not allowed to vote 3) the options were not given, let alone explained
-
Because 1) we were lied to 2) the young - the people most affected - were not allowed to vote 3) the options were not given, let alone explained
And this is different from the most recent referendum in which way?
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
-
And this is different from the most recent referendum in which way?
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
I misread your post, sorry - I think we are on the same page :)
-
We have already had a second referendum - I want to know why the democratic decision of the people who voted in the first was not respected[^].
========================================================= I'm an optoholic - my glass is always half full of vodka. =========================================================
The result of the 1975 referendum was respected; the vote was to remain, which required no action to be taken; that non-action was carried out immediately. The 2016 referendum requires action to change the status; once that status has been changed, there's nothing to stop a further referendum (which would then be concerned with re-joining the EU). In any case, currently you might as well call for a referendum on whether the sun should rise tomorrow. As was well debated 15 months ago, there is no mechanism in the EU constitution to "undo" the invocation of Article 50. It is not now possible to stop the UK leaving the EU; an inexorable process has been triggered. Once left, (March 2019 by default, possibly earlier) the UK could in theory apply to re-join the EU. Of course any such application would require the unanimous agreement of the other member states, and they'd likely have requirements that would be unacceptable to the UK (such as joining the Euro, or paying a supplement instead of a rebate). I just wish that instead of talking about "crashing out" of the EU, the media would simply refer to "leaving" the EU, which is what was promised prior to the referendum (if the vote was for "leave") and is what, I suspect, the majority of leave voters expected and wanted.
