It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Brexit is a Mess, how do we Fix it.

page: 16
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


That would be the referendum with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.


Just live with it.

If ONE Referendum was good enough in 1975, then ONE is good enough in 2016.



If one was good enough in 75 Why have another one in 2016?


History Lesson

What we voted to REMAIN in in 1975, was the EEC.

The E.U. is not The EEC and nothing like it.



So a change in circumstance is valid reason for a new referendum?




posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


That would be the referendum with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.


Just live with it.

If ONE Referendum was good enough in 1975, then ONE is good enough in 2016.



If one was good enough in 75 Why have another one in 2016?


History Lesson

What we voted to REMAIN in in 1975, was the EEC.

The E.U. is not The EEC and nothing like it.



So a change in circumstance is valid reason for a new referendum?


You just shot yourself in the foot.

You are asking for a new Referendum because you believe there has been a change in circumstances since 2016.

PMSL



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


That would be the referendum with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.


Just live with it.

If ONE Referendum was good enough in 1975, then ONE is good enough in 2016.



If one was good enough in 75 Why have another one in 2016?


History Lesson

What we voted to REMAIN in in 1975, was the EEC.

The E.U. is not The EEC and nothing like it.



So a change in circumstance is valid reason for a new referendum?


You just shot yourself in the foot.

You are asking for a new Referendum because you believe there has been a change in circumstances since 2016.

PMSL


No just asked you a question, is a change of circumstance valid reason for a new referendum.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


That would be the referendum with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.


Just live with it.

If ONE Referendum was good enough in 1975, then ONE is good enough in 2016.



If one was good enough in 75 Why have another one in 2016?


History Lesson

What we voted to REMAIN in in 1975, was the EEC.

The E.U. is not The EEC and nothing like it.



So a change in circumstance is valid reason for a new referendum?


You just shot yourself in the foot.

You are asking for a new Referendum because you believe there has been a change in circumstances since 2016.

PMSL


No just asked you a question, is a change of circumstance valid reason for a new referendum.


Obviously you think it is.

Why ask me? I am not calling for a second referendum.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:11 PM
link   
"Opps they voted to leave, that wasnt suppose to happen"

"Don't worry we'll mess up the exit so badly that they will beg us to have another vote"



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


That would be the referendum with a 67% vote in favour of continued membership.


Just live with it.

If ONE Referendum was good enough in 1975, then ONE is good enough in 2016.



If one was good enough in 75 Why have another one in 2016?


History Lesson

What we voted to REMAIN in in 1975, was the EEC.

The E.U. is not The EEC and nothing like it.



So a change in circumstance is valid reason for a new referendum?


You just shot yourself in the foot.

You are asking for a new Referendum because you believe there has been a change in circumstances since 2016.

PMSL


No just asked you a question, is a change of circumstance valid reason for a new referendum.


Obviously you think it is.

Why ask me? I am not calling for a second referendum.


Evasive answer, is a change of circumstance a valid reason for a referendum or not?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


I suppose they should have waited and had a second one just in case people changed their minds.


67% voted in favour of continued membership.


That does not matter. The referendum went one way, and the government followed.


And if we have another referendum and it says stay in shouldn't the government follow then?


You might as well do another one, best two out of three. Let me guess, you voted remain?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Let me put it this way.

If the 2016 referendum had been a YES to stay in The E.U. you would not even be here to call for another referendum.

As i said earlier, just live with it.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


I suppose they should have waited and had a second one just in case people changed their minds.


67% voted in favour of continued membership.


That does not matter. The referendum went one way, and the government followed.


And if we have another referendum and it says stay in shouldn't the government follow then?


You might as well do another one, best two out of three. Let me guess, you voted remain?


Someone else not dealing with the issue. If the will of the people was now to stay should the government folllow that or not?
edit on 21-9-2018 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot

Let me put it this way.

If the 2016 referendum had been a YES to stay in The E.U. you would not even be here to call for another referendum.

As i said earlier, just live with it.



Nigel Farage ( you may have heard of him) said in the event of a narrow loss he would campaign for a further referendum.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


I suppose they should have waited and had a second one just in case people changed their minds.


67% voted in favour of continued membership.


That does not matter. The referendum went one way, and the government followed.


And if we have another referendum and it says stay in shouldn't the government follow then?


You might as well do another one, best two out of three. Let me guess, you voted remain?




I wonder which Football Team our Scottish friend follows?

I bet he is never happy with their results ( unless they win of course )




posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
Putting it to another vote is a dangerous idea. The people have spoken.



And if there was another vote that would also be the people speaking.


No it wouldn't. That would be denying the will of the people.


Referendums are denying the will of the people? Quite the leap.


What about refusing the result of a referendum?


Who suggested that?


Was there or was there not a referendum regarding membership in the European Union in 2016? If so, what was the results of that referendum? Now, should the government follow through on the results of that referendum?


One referendum does not preclude another. Democracy means people are allowed to change their minds.


And were where you in 1975, when there was only ONE Referendum ?


I suppose they should have waited and had a second one just in case people changed their minds.


67% voted in favour of continued membership.


That does not matter. The referendum went one way, and the government followed.


And if we have another referendum and it says stay in shouldn't the government follow then?


You might as well do another one, best two out of three. Let me guess, you voted remain?




I wonder which Football Team our Scottish friend follows?

I bet he is never happy with their results ( unless they win of course )



What does what team I support have anything to o with it? Please do explain.

(I also suspect ninja has little interest UK sports).



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




Someone else not dealing with the issue. If the will of the people was now to stay should the government folllow that or not?


The will of the people was to leave. Let me guess, you didn't like losing?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: ScepticScot




Someone else not dealing with the issue. If the will of the people was now to stay should the government folllow that or not?


The will of the people was to leave. Let me guess, you didn't like losing?


And if a new vote was to stay?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot




And if a new vote was to stay?


A revote is undemocratic.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: ScepticScot




And if a new vote was to stay?


A revote is undemocratic.


Referendums are undemocratic now?



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: ScepticScot




And if a new vote was to stay?


A revote is undemocratic.


Referendums are undemocratic now?


Revotes are referendums now? I know they start with the same letter, but this is ridiculous.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: ScepticScot




And if a new vote was to stay?


A revote is undemocratic.


Referendums are undemocratic now?


Revotes are referendums now? I know they start with the same letter, but this is ridiculous.



Yes a revote would be a referendum, that is what we are talking about.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

ref·er·en·dum
ˌrefəˈrendəm/Submit
noun
a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.



posted on Sep, 21 2018 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: NiNjABackflip
a reply to: ScepticScot

ref·er·en·dum
ˌrefəˈrendəm/Submit
noun
a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision.



Yes and a revote would be a referendum. Not sure how that is confusing you.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join