Brexit: Revoke Article 50 petition crashes Parliament website

a reply to: JDmOKI

Just reach a compromise and make both parties happy so you don't enrage everyone. Why even call a vote to leave?

Ohhh if only that were possible.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

"Just to be clear, is it your stance that any referendum should be never enforced and constantly revoted on, or just when it comes out a way you dont like?"

No it is my stance that we should revoke article 50, have a second referendum that is a choice between remain and hard Brexit and that should be the end of it.

So your answer is referendums should not be enforced just when you dont like the result.

Seems like a very authoritarian way to govern.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
I think after all the useless political wrangling the government may be surprised at the swing to a No Deal Brexit.

I'd bet if they were stupid enough to have another Brexit vote, they would now lose by a bigger majority.

The people are pissed off. If they don't make a decision soon there will be riots.

Dont you get it?

If there was another vote, and more people voted to leave, then we would need ANOTHER vote!

Until the vote is to remain, its OBVIOUS the people are not knowing what they are voting for!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

"Just to be clear, is it your stance that any referendum should be never enforced and constantly revoted on, or just when it comes out a way you dont like?"

No it is my stance that we should revoke article 50, have a second referendum that is a choice between remain and hard Brexit and that should be the end of it.

So your answer is referendums should not be enforced just when you dont like the result.

Seems like a very authoritarian way to govern.

No my answer is that we should have a second referendum just one, with a simple question remain or hard Brexit.

Referendums are problematic at the best of times and I think that this is the kind of problems they represent. This whole thing should never have happened, we are only in this mess because David Cameron had to appease his backbench MPs.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Grambler

"Just to be clear, is it your stance that any referendum should be never enforced and constantly revoted on, or just when it comes out a way you dont like?"

No it is my stance that we should revoke article 50, have a second referendum that is a choice between remain and hard Brexit and that should be the end of it.

So your answer is referendums should not be enforced just when you dont like the result.

Seems like a very authoritarian way to govern.

No my answer is that we should have a second referendum just one, with a simple question remain or hard Brexit.

Referendums are problematic at the best of times and I think that this is the kind of problems they represent. This whole thing should never have happened, we are only in this mess because David Cameron had to appease his backbench MPs.

You say just one more now, but do you really think that the remain people would be sastuified with just one more if it doesnt come out their way?

I mean, everyone assumed that the first referendum would be just one. But the remainers lost, now they want just one more.

I cant believe how childish and authoritarian that mindset is.

I can see it coming to the US.

"Ok we will have an election in 2020. If Trump wins, we just want ONE redo!"

a reply to: Grambler

I know exactly how it's playing out.
Notice how the fearmongering is getting more intense? It's like listening to the Jaws music.

originally posted by: UKWO1Phot
a reply to: Grambler

I know exactly how it's playing out.
Notice how the fearmongering is getting more intense? It's like listening to the Jaws music.

Its always the globalists side, just like with the Libson treaty.

"Trust us we are not dictators refusing the hear the will of the people. We will leave you vote! If you vote in a way we dont like, we will refuse to enforce your will, and make you vote again until we get the result we like!"

Interesting that sop many are willing to fall for that charade as long as they didnt like the outcome of the vote as well.

Soon these people will be cheering to remove the charade of the vote all together, because people are dumb and dont know what they voted for.

a reply to: Grambler

Its very different from an election.

Second referendums have happened before there is nothing, not a thing, undemocratic about going back to the people if parliament is unable to clear a way forward which is exactly what has happened. I get that you might disagree with me but I feel your remark about a childish authoritarian mindset is rather uncalled for.

I would add that I believe that the first referendum should have been by supermajority and in a ideal world any second referendum should also be by supermajority however given that this was not the case in the first I don't think it should be in the second for the sake of fairness.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It is childish to demand that the vote of a people be ignored because it didnt go your way. I am not insulting you, I am calling the action childish.

I would argue that the UK should have never been in an organization that superseded national law and gave the people no ability to vote on the laws that would govern them.

Many people thought that was a crisis.

So if the condition for a referendum to be ignored is because of someone definition of a "crisis", why wouldn't either side be able to call for a third referendum if they didnt like the results of the second?

Ignoring a vote because you dint like the outcome, no matter how moral or justified you make it seem, is undemocratic and authoritarian.

We, the British people have already voted to leave the EU, so we dont need to be asked that again.

If there were to be a 2nd referendum the question should be :-

1/ Leave with Theresa May's deal

2/ Leave with no deal

Easy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin



' I would add that I believe that the first referendum should have been by supermajority and in a ideal world any second referendum should also be by supermajority however given that this was not the case in the first I don't think it should be in the second for the sake of fairness.'


it was a 50% plus 1 or am I in a different politiverse?

both main political parties promised they would respect the brexit decision in the run-up to the 2017 general election. I put this to you in a previous thread but received no reply, still wondering why!

I had three different conversations with businessmen this morning and the resonance is should parliament torpedo the 29th things will kick-off big style and they were all of the opinion that the houses are no longer representing the peoples decisions and have strayed far too deep into the eu's pockets.

f.

a reply to: Grambler

It is childish to demand that the vote of a people be ignored because it didnt go your way.

I know I can't convince you of this but there is nothing I can do about that. My main justification for a second referendum is simply that now that government cannot forge a way forward then it should go back to the people to decide. Its not so much about how it didn't go my way so I want a revote.

Its honestly because I do believe it is the only way forward that would be in the best interests of the country. If it was a vote of remain or "no-deal, hard Brexit" (which is what we are facing right now) and hard Brexit won, I would be gutted but I would have to respect that decision.

I am not demanding it, I am suggesting it.

a reply to: fakedirt

both main political parties promised they would respect the brexit decision in the run-up to the 2017 general election. I put this to you in a previous thread but received no reply, still wondering why!

So what?

Really so what, I dont care what promises they made they break them all the time anyway. If I have not replied its probably because I dont really have much of a view one way or the other on this point. Perhaps if you expanded on it a little?

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

You think if the people vote for something that the government won’t enforce, then the people must change their mind

I think if the government can’t give people what they vote for, then the government should be replaced

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: fakedirt

both main political parties promised they would respect the brexit decision in the run-up to the 2017 general election. I put this to you in a previous thread but received no reply, still wondering why!

So what?

Really so what, I dont care what promises they made they break them all the time anyway. If I have not replied its probably because I dont really have much of a view one way or the other on this point. Perhaps if you expanded on it a little?

And here we have it

So what if the remainders lied and said they would respect the vote

Oh but have a second referendum, and THIS time they will totally tell the truth!

a reply to: Grambler


What is the point in me bothering to converse with you when you keep putting words in my mouth.

Breixt will destroy this country, there is nobody, who thinks a hard Brexit is in the interests of the UK this crisis is about averting a hard-brexit.

a reply to: Grambler

So what if the remainders lied and said they would respect the vote

So what if vote leaved promised an extra £350 Million a week....

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

We voted to leave the EU.
No mention of a deal.
The referendum was not legally binding....but it certainly was morally binding.

You refuse to accept the result of a democratic ballot and then use the numbers of an online petition offering only one option as justification for a second referendum.

We voted to come out of the EU....so we should come out.

If we have a second referendum the options should be;
1. Accept a government backed deal.
2. No deal.

No wonder we're the laughing stock of the whole frigging world at the moment.

Listen very closely, a referendum is exactly the same as apetition to government. A different mechanism but the same answer. THEY ARE NOT A MANDATE, they CANNOT force the government to do anything. They are both only mechanisms to get the thoughts of the people. If they wanted to, the government could have rejected the referendum vote and do nothing. That is the law.
The only problem that's caused this debacle is the negotiations for the terms of leaving the EU were left to the conservative Prime Minister and her close advisers not the whole government. So it's a conservatives version of brexit And the opposition can't agree with it.
Now for you Brexiteers, the governments had numerous votes on numerous versions, why don't you shout about those REVOTES. Oh.we only go by one vote BS.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: fakedirt

both main political parties promised they would respect the brexit decision in the run-up to the 2017 general election. I put this to you in a previous thread but received no reply, still wondering why!

So what?

Really so what, I dont care what promises they made they break them all the time anyway. If I have not replied its probably because I dont really have much of a view one way or the other on this point. Perhaps if you expanded on it a little?

so you are content with denying a democratic process validated by the then sitting parliament and further re-enforced on a manifesto and then enshrined in law so it is reduced to 'silly people didn't know what they were voting for' (not your statement btw)?

f.