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.

 

The United Kingdom doesn’t exist.

page: 6
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Yes it does




posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Still not an answer. Do you think we should still leave even if the majority now wanted to stay?



And ^^^thats^^^ not a question its ifs and buts ask it again when you

have something more concrete and definate than *IF*

I dont do circles I do straight lines,



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 11:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot


Still not an answer. Do you think we should still leave even if the majority now wanted to stay?



And ^^^thats^^^ not a question its ifs and buts ask it again when you

have something more concrete and definate than *IF*

I dont do circles I do straight lines,




Its a very straightforward question that you are obviously reluctant to answer.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

The certainty rof a change to the outcome seems to be from brexit supporters many of whom seem utterly terrified by the prospect of a second referendum.



Not at all

If democracy is to be observed the first result needs to be delivered

before anything else.


As usual its the 'remainers' who are flouting democracy.





Do you think we should still leave even if the majority of people now wanted to stay?


I think the vote happened and you can get another vote after the first vote has been fulfilled. Otherwise even if a 2nd vote goes leave's way you can keep saying 'but now people want to stay so we need another vote first' until eternity.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I am a pro EU Remainer but we lost. It was framed as a referendum that would (for once) be legally binding and was accepted as such by the political class from all sides of the argument. As such, holding another referendum is entirely undemocratic. And, if it did happen and we won this time, why should Brexiteers accept it?

The precedent would have been set to ignore all votes if it wasn't what one party (political, social, cultural or whatever) wanted. Those really are the stakes that my fellow Remainers don't seem to understand.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

The certainty rof a change to the outcome seems to be from brexit supporters many of whom seem utterly terrified by the prospect of a second referendum.



Not at all

If democracy is to be observed the first result needs to be delivered

before anything else.


As usual its the 'remainers' who are flouting democracy.





Do you think we should still leave even if the majority of people now wanted to stay?


I think the vote happened and you can get another vote after the first vote has been fulfilled. Otherwise even if a 2nd vote goes leave's way you can keep saying 'but now people want to stay so we need another vote first' until eternity.


That doesn't answer the question either.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I am a pro EU Remainer but we lost. It was framed as a referendum that would (for once) be legally binding and was accepted as such by the political class from all sides of the argument. As such, holding another referendum is entirely undemocratic. And, if it did happen and we won this time, why should Brexiteers accept it?

The precedent would have been set to ignore all votes if it wasn't what one party (political, social, cultural or whatever) wanted. Those really are the stakes that my fellow Remainers don't seem to understand.


The referendum was never legally binding.

It was 3 years ago and a lot has changed.

Making such a decision on a simple majority vote is stupid. There are reasons why we don't have direct democracy.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

I think the vote happened and you can get another vote after the first vote has been fulfilled. Otherwise even if a 2nd
vote goes leave's way you can keep saying 'but now people want to stay so we need another vote first' until eternity.


Unbelievable!!!! How he can't get his head around that. /smh.

Someone else who doesn't get it, Jeremy Corbyn, he said in his speech today

"Let the people decide"


What does he think the people did in 2016? They decided only the politicians

aren't listening.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian




It was framed as a referendum that would (for once) be legally binding and was accepted as such by the political class from all sides of the argument


It was never legally binding it was only ever an advisory vote.

I would also add that repeated referendums have happened in the past in other states and its never been a issue.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

The certainty rof a change to the outcome seems to be from brexit supporters many of whom seem utterly terrified by the prospect of a second referendum.



Not at all

If democracy is to be observed the first result needs to be delivered

before anything else.


As usual its the 'remainers' who are flouting democracy.





Do you think we should still leave even if the majority of people now wanted to stay?


I think the vote happened and you can get another vote after the first vote has been fulfilled. Otherwise even if a 2nd vote goes leave's way you can keep saying 'but now people want to stay so we need another vote first' until eternity.


That doesn't answer the question either.

Actually it does. I flat out stated the vote happened and needs to be enacted. I then also answered why your argument falls flat on it's face.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

No that is incorrect. Referendums are not legally binding but before this one Cameron stated that as a one off, the result of the referendum would be binding - and all political parties agreed to this. They then voted through the withdrawal agreement.

That is fact regarding this aspect and any other position is either an outright lie or dishonest at best.

Take it to its logical conclusion that the democratic mandate is overturned here and the referendum is ignored; in future, you may vote for the Independent Scotland you desire. Given the by then overturning of this referendum, why should Westminster accept it? It will already have been proved that the democratic is unimportant....



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

There is no legal obligation for them to abide by the vote.

There is a legal obligation to leave on the 31st of October but there isn't anything legal that says they can't just revoke article 50, remain in the EU and totally ignore the vote.

Yes they said that they would respect the vote but its only words, there was never any legal obligation to adhere to the vote.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Flavian




It was framed as a referendum that would (for once) be legally binding and was accepted as such by the political class from all sides of the argument


It was never legally binding it was only ever an advisory vote.

I would also add that repeated referendums have happened in the past in other states and its never been a issue.


Then you can leave, and have a vote, and if it turns out to be a rejoin vote you can just keep redoing it until you get the result of stay gone, not an issue right?



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: eletheia

I agree, let them decide. Do we have anything like a vote that would tell us what their decision is? If so follow it, because the people decided.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It was stated by all leaders that the result of the referendum would be followed by the UK Parliament, that the result would be honoured.

Go on, try to interpret that another way.

For the record, i still believe in the EU and still think Brexit is disaster territory.

That isn't important though, what is important is that more of my fellow citizens disagreed with me and voted as such.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
a reply to: Flavian




It was framed as a referendum that would (for once) be legally binding and was accepted as such by the political class from all sides of the argument


It was never legally binding it was only ever an advisory vote.

I would also add that repeated referendums have happened in the past in other states and its never been a issue.


Then you can leave, and have a vote, and if it turns out to be a rejoin vote you can just keep redoing it until you get the result of stay gone, not an issue right?


No its an issue because if we done that we would have to adopt the Euro for example.

right now the UK enjoys basically being able to cherry pick a number of EU institutions we are not part of the Euro or Schengen, if we were to leave then rejoin we would have to join as a new member state and that would mean losing these benefits.

Claiming you can just rejoin is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of the UKs position on Europe.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

The certainty rof a change to the outcome seems to be from brexit supporters many of whom seem utterly terrified by the prospect of a second referendum.



Not at all

If democracy is to be observed the first result needs to be delivered

before anything else.


As usual its the 'remainers' who are flouting democracy.





Do you think we should still leave even if the majority of people now wanted to stay?


I think the vote happened and you can get another vote after the first vote has been fulfilled. Otherwise even if a 2nd vote goes leave's way you can keep saying 'but now people want to stay so we need another vote first' until eternity.


That doesn't answer the question either.

Actually it does. I flat out stated the vote happened and needs to be enacted. I then also answered why your argument falls flat on it's face.


No you answered by talking about the circumstances of a second vote.

If you are confirming that you think we should leave even if the majority don't want to then you should acknowledge it has nothing to do with democracy.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Flavian

Yes but the point am making is a factual one, there is no legal obligation to adhere to the advisory vote.

Am not arguing about what we should and should not be doing just clarifying the legal position.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flavian
a reply to: ScepticScot

No that is incorrect. Referendums are not legally binding but before this one Cameron stated that as a one off, the result of the referendum would be binding - and all political parties agreed to this. They then voted through the withdrawal agreement.

That is fact regarding this aspect and any other position is either an outright lie or dishonest at best.

Take it to its logical conclusion that the democratic mandate is overturned here and the referendum is ignored; in future, you may vote for the Independent Scotland you desire. Given the by then overturning of this referendum, why should Westminster accept it? It will already have been proved that the democratic is unimportant....


Cameron didn't have the power to unilaterally declare it binding.

We shouldn't be making major constitutional changes , including potential scottish independence, based on a simple majority vote.

One of my main reasons for supporting scottish independence is the lack of any proper constitution which should include how that constitution can be amended.



posted on Sep, 2 2019 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Claiming you can just rejoin is a demonstration of a lack of understanding of the UKs position on Europe.



You forget we just didn't just join a convivial, benevolent club,

We have been the second largest financial contributer.

They are going to have to fill that financial hole!!

You remainers make it sound as if the EU was doing us a favour

We more than paid our way!!!!







 
21
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join