Brexit is a Mess, how do we Fix it.

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.

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.

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?

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?

a reply to: ScepticScot

The people said what they wanted in June 2016.

Did you miss it ?

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot

The people said what they wanted in June 2016.

Did you miss it ?

The people are allowed to change their mind.

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?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot

The people said what they wanted in June 2016.

Did you miss it ?

The people are allowed to change their mind.

And people are allowed to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.

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.

originally posted by: alldaylong

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: ScepticScot

The people said what they wanted in June 2016.

Did you miss it ?

The people are allowed to change their mind.

And people are allowed to honour the result of the 2016 Referendum.

See answer above.

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 ?

a reply to: ScepticScot

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

I'm not aware of a single democracy that allows people to rescind their votes and make another one. That's not what democracy means.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.