Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Visit the current forum | Forum Rules

Page 1296 of 1552 < 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 >

Matov 24 Sep 19 8.52pm
Originally posted by DanH If you don’t think British judges are impartial and acting to uphold the law to the best of their ability does this mean every judgment from the Supreme Court is suddenly null and void? I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 8.52pm

Originally posted by DanH

If you don’t think British judges are impartial and acting to uphold the law to the best of their ability does this mean every judgment from the Supreme Court is suddenly null and void?

I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 8.54pm
Originally posted by DanH The only person (or people) who have embarrassed her is Boris and his advisors. Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 8.54pm

Originally posted by DanH

The only person (or people) who have embarrassed her is Boris and his advisors.

Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal.

The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts.

The Queen is above the law.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

chris123 hove actually 24 Sep 19 9.00pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law. Unlawful, not illegal.

chris123

hove actually 24 Sep 19 9.00pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal.

The Queen is above the law.

Unlawful, not illegal.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.05pm
Originally posted by chris123 Unlawful, not illegal. Semantics really but OK a fair point. Not that it actually makes any difference. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.05pm

Originally posted by chris123

Unlawful, not illegal.

Semantics really but OK a fair point.

Not that it actually makes any difference.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Matov 24 Sep 19 9.09pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I, nor I believe does anyone else, think those who hold your position are "w*ers" of the highest order". I just think you are mistaken about the way our democracy works and that your attitudes and frustrations all flow from that. So we have Parliament agreeing to hold a referendum with a simple question being posed. Shall we leave or remain in the EU? And the Government says that it will abide by the decision, as does every major political player of the day. We have that vote. And with no serious doubts about the veracity of the voting process. There is a clear winner. 52% vote for us to Leave. Parliament then, by a huge majority, vote for the Article 50 process to be triggered. It is. And we are told that come what may, we will be leaving on March 29th. None of it proviso on a deal being agreed. Then we have a GE. And 80% of people vote for a political party that has campaigned on a straight forward promise to honour the outcome of the referendum. The PM of the day comes back with a deal. It is rejected. Three times. But we are still scheduled to be leaving on March 29th. And we dont. Instead we end up here. Yes, I have written all of this before. But explain this to me. Why should I not be frustrated? Why should I not be utterly dismissive of a political system that has promised me, time and time again, to do what I along with 17.4 million others asked it to do? Yes, the referendum was advisory. And yes, Parliament has the right to change its mind. But if it does so, why would I then subsequently vote in another referendum it offers me on this precise topic? What credibility would that one have in face of the one from June 23rd being ignored despite numerous promises? Surely the refusal to abide by its promise before that one makes any subsequent referendums utterly pointless? Has it ignored any other referendums? Is there a precedent for this? And this self-same Parliament refusing to put itself to the scrutiny of a general election? What has more credibility now? A general election or a referendum? f* it. And f*** anybody who wants to defend it. If it wants to revoke A50 then let it do so. Let it stand up and proudly hold that vote. I will loathe it for ever more but its authority will be clear for all of us to see and judge accordingly when the next GE comes around. You want us all to just sit back and accept what MP's decide for us all then fine but let them do so openly and without any more deceit. And certainly not with another referendum that solves nothing at all. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 9.09pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I, nor I believe does anyone else, think those who hold your position are "w***ers" of the highest order". I just think you are mistaken about the way our democracy works and that your attitudes and frustrations all flow from that.

So we have Parliament agreeing to hold a referendum with a simple question being posed. Shall we leave or remain in the EU? And the Government says that it will abide by the decision, as does every major political player of the day.

We have that vote. And with no serious doubts about the veracity of the voting process.

There is a clear winner. 52% vote for us to Leave.

Parliament then, by a huge majority, vote for the Article 50 process to be triggered.

It is. And we are told that come what may, we will be leaving on March 29th. None of it proviso on a deal being agreed.

Then we have a GE. And 80% of people vote for a political party that has campaigned on a straight forward promise to honour the outcome of the referendum.

The PM of the day comes back with a deal. It is rejected. Three times. But we are still scheduled to be leaving on March 29th.

And we dont. Instead we end up here.

Yes, I have written all of this before. But explain this to me. Why should I not be frustrated? Why should I not be utterly dismissive of a political system that has promised me, time and time again, to do what I along with 17.4 million others asked it to do?

Yes, the referendum was advisory. And yes, Parliament has the right to change its mind. But if it does so, why would I then subsequently vote in another referendum it offers me on this precise topic? What credibility would that one have in face of the one from June 23rd being ignored despite numerous promises? Surely the refusal to abide by its promise before that one makes any subsequent referendums utterly pointless? Has it ignored any other referendums? Is there a precedent for this?

And this self-same Parliament refusing to put itself to the scrutiny of a general election? What has more credibility now? A general election or a referendum?

f*** it. And f*** anybody who wants to defend it. If it wants to revoke A50 then let it do so. Let it stand up and proudly hold that vote. I will loathe it for ever more but its authority will be clear for all of us to see and judge accordingly when the next GE comes around.

You want us all to just sit back and accept what MP's decide for us all then fine but let them do so openly and without any more deceit. And certainly not with another referendum that solves nothing at all.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Teddy Eagle 24 Sep 19 9.14pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal. The Queen was just following that advice as required by constitutional convention. If she had an opinion she would neither have expressed it or acted upon it. She quite rightly left that to Parliament and/or the Courts. The Queen is above the law. But to repeat the advice given was that taken from the Attorney General. Should his advice not have been trusted? It’s not as though the government asked some bloke down the pub. He is the chief legal adviser to the Crown.

Teddy Eagle

24 Sep 19 9.14pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course. The Court found that the advice given to the Queen was illegal and that as a consequence everything that flowed from that advice was also illegal.

The Queen is above the law.

But to repeat the advice given was that taken from the Attorney General. Should his advice not have been trusted? It’s not as though the government asked some bloke down the pub. He is the chief legal adviser to the Crown.

silvertop Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.17pm
Originally posted by W12 Re-moaners think 17.4m people came to the wrong conclusion. They just have less power than 11 judges. They did. And a 2nd referendum will prove it.

silvertop

Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.17pm

Originally posted by W12

Re-moaners think 17.4m people came to the wrong conclusion. They just have less power than 11 judges.

They did. And a 2nd referendum will prove it.

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.19pm
No-body has yet commented on Johnson's response which seemed to me to have been prepared in advance and, as a consequence, totally miss the gravity of the situation he is now in. To say he "disagrees" with a unanimous verdict by the UK Supreme Court is arrogance of a staggering degree and totally inappropriate in the circumstances. Much better to have said nothing other than the government were carefully reviewing the decision and would respond in due course. To then carry on with the sham defence of positioning this as his government trying to deliver Brexit on behalf of the people in the face of Parliamentary, and now Judicial, interference was unbelievable when he had just lost the argument so decisively. This was the people's law as enacted by the people's Parliament finding that a minority government had acted unlawfully. I know the hardliners here and elsewhere are predictably up in arms but this is a major moment in British political history when the supremacy of Parliament over the executive has been nailed down in law. Much good can flow from this. And not just for Brexit. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 24 Sep 19 9.19pm

No-body has yet commented on Johnson's response which seemed to me to have been prepared in advance and, as a consequence, totally miss the gravity of the situation he is now in.

To say he "disagrees" with a unanimous verdict by the UK Supreme Court is arrogance of a staggering degree and totally inappropriate in the circumstances. Much better to have said nothing other than the government were carefully reviewing the decision and would respond in due course.

To then carry on with the sham defence of positioning this as his government trying to deliver Brexit on behalf of the people in the face of Parliamentary, and now Judicial, interference was unbelievable when he had just lost the argument so decisively. This was the people's law as enacted by the people's Parliament finding that a minority government had acted unlawfully.

I know the hardliners here and elsewhere are predictably up in arms but this is a major moment in British political history when the supremacy of Parliament over the executive has been nailed down in law. Much good can flow from this. And not just for Brexit.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

DanH SW2 24 Sep 19 9.20pm
Originally posted by Matov I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow. Calm down, Guy Fawkes

DanH

SW2 24 Sep 19 9.20pm

Originally posted by Matov

I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow.

Calm down, Guy Fawkes

silvertop Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.25pm
Originally posted by Matov I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow. I thought you were one of the more measured right wingers on here. How many cleaners security guards and clerks on.minimum wage would you take pleasure in seeing burned alive? The judges have not revoked article 50. They have quite rightly quoshed a decision that even your poster boy Farage thought unlawful. Perspective!

silvertop

Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.25pm

Originally posted by Matov

I would happily torch the entire place tomorrow.

I thought you were one of the more measured right wingers on here.

How many cleaners security guards and clerks on.minimum wage would you take pleasure in seeing burned alive?

The judges have not revoked article 50. They have quite rightly quoshed a decision that even your poster boy Farage thought unlawful.

Perspective!

Matov 24 Sep 19 9.30pm
Originally posted by silvertop They did. And a 2nd referendum will prove it. What does it prove? Lets assume that it happens. Now I believe there would be a mass boycott because it would lack any shred of credibility. Why vote again for something that did not happen the first time around? Or will you really really promise us this time? And no fingers crossed behind your back? Let us envisage a turn out of under 50%. With Remain winning by less than 17.4 million votes. Is that more legitimate then the result of June 23rd? Tell me how that solves anything? Yes, we stay in the EU but come the next election and we get a majority for leaving, we go back down the same rabbit hole. OK. So Parliament is bottling a general election. And you are all chuffed that it has asserted its authority which means it can ignore the result from June 23rd without any recourse. Again fine. Let it revoke A50. Let is show us how powerful it is. Do that to us rather than a referendum that nobody with half an ounce of common sense will take in any way, shape or form seriously. It would be a farce and achieve nothing. If Parliament is sovereign then Parliament either acts accordingly or puts itself up for re-election. Let us see how much it values its own worth rather than its cowardly actions of pretending to ask the people then seeking to ignore what the people tell it. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 9.30pm

Originally posted by silvertop

They did. And a 2nd referendum will prove it.

What does it prove? Lets assume that it happens. Now I believe there would be a mass boycott because it would lack any shred of credibility. Why vote again for something that did not happen the first time around? Or will you really really promise us this time? And no fingers crossed behind your back?

Let us envisage a turn out of under 50%. With Remain winning by less than 17.4 million votes. Is that more legitimate then the result of June 23rd? Tell me how that solves anything? Yes, we stay in the EU but come the next election and we get a majority for leaving, we go back down the same rabbit hole.

OK. So Parliament is bottling a general election. And you are all chuffed that it has asserted its authority which means it can ignore the result from June 23rd without any recourse. Again fine.

Let it revoke A50. Let is show us how powerful it is. Do that to us rather than a referendum that nobody with half an ounce of common sense will take in any way, shape or form seriously. It would be a farce and achieve nothing.

If Parliament is sovereign then Parliament either acts accordingly or puts itself up for re-election. Let us see how much it values its own worth rather than its cowardly actions of pretending to ask the people then seeking to ignore what the people tell it.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

tome Inner Tantalus Time. 24 Sep 19 9.35pm
Originally posted by Matov So we have Parliament agreeing to hold a referendum with a simple question being posed. Shall we leave or remain in the EU? And the Government says that it will abide by the decision, as does every major political player of the day. We have that vote. And with no serious doubts about the veracity of the voting process. There is a clear winner. 52% vote for us to Leave. Parliament then, by a huge majority, vote for the Article 50 process to be triggered. It is. And we are told that come what may, we will be leaving on March 29th. None of it proviso on a deal being agreed. Then we have a GE. And 80% of people vote for a political party that has campaigned on a straight forward promise to honour the outcome of the referendum. The PM of the day comes back with a deal. It is rejected. Three times. But we are still scheduled to be leaving on March 29th. And we dont. Instead we end up here. Yes, I have written all of this before. But explain this to me. Why should I not be frustrated? Why should I not be utterly dismissive of a political system that has promised me, time and time again, to do what I along with 17.4 million others asked it to do? Yes, the referendum was advisory. And yes, Parliament has the right to change its mind. But if it does so, why would I then subsequently vote in another referendum it offers me on this precise topic? What credibility would that one have in face of the one from June 23rd being ignored despite numerous promises? Surely the refusal to abide by its promise before that one makes any subsequent referendums utterly pointless? Has it ignored any other referendums? Is there a precedent for this? And this self-same Parliament refusing to put itself to the scrutiny of a general election? What has more credibility now? A general election or a referendum? f* it. And f* anybody who wants to defend it. If it wants to revoke A50 then let it do so. Let it stand up and proudly hold that vote. I will loathe it for ever more but its authority will be clear for all of us to see and judge accordingly when the next GE comes around. You want us all to just sit back and accept what MP's decide for us all then fine but let them do so openly and without any more deceit. And certainly not with another referendum that solves nothing at all. The problem with the referendum is it posed a simple question to a complex problem. It was in reality 'keep things at they are' versus 'change'. But no one was clear what the leave, or change scenario would actually be. While I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, the idea to work out some options for what leave could mean if it was voted for, then go back to the people with those options and remain is what should have happened in the first place. A one and a two...

tome

Inner Tantalus Time. 24 Sep 19 9.35pm

Originally posted by Matov

We have that vote. And with no serious doubts about the veracity of the voting process.

There is a clear winner. 52% vote for us to Leave.

Parliament then, by a huge majority, vote for the Article 50 process to be triggered.

It is. And we are told that come what may, we will be leaving on March 29th. None of it proviso on a deal being agreed.

Then we have a GE. And 80% of people vote for a political party that has campaigned on a straight forward promise to honour the outcome of the referendum.

The PM of the day comes back with a deal. It is rejected. Three times. But we are still scheduled to be leaving on March 29th.

And we dont. Instead we end up here.

And this self-same Parliament refusing to put itself to the scrutiny of a general election? What has more credibility now? A general election or a referendum?

The problem with the referendum is it posed a simple question to a complex problem. It was in reality 'keep things at they are' versus 'change'. But no one was clear what the leave, or change scenario would actually be.

While I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, the idea to work out some options for what leave could mean if it was voted for, then go back to the people with those options and remain is what should have happened in the first place.

A one and a two...

Matov 24 Sep 19 9.36pm
Originally posted by silvertop I thought you were one of the more measured right wingers on here. How many cleaners security guards and clerks on.minimum wage would you take pleasure in seeing burned alive? The judges have not revoked article 50. They have quite rightly quoshed a decision that even your poster boy Farage thought unlawful. Perspective! Thats a valid point. I accept that I was wrong in my desire to torch the place. But I am voicing a frustration that millions of others are feeling right now and what I feel that many of you Remainers are unable or unwilling to comprehend. Can you give me a single reason why I should not be highly f***ed off with all levels of our executive at the moment after the assurances it gave us that our vote on June 23rd would matter? And why I should place any faith in voting in any referendum, ever again? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 9.36pm

Originally posted by silvertop

I thought you were one of the more measured right wingers on here.

How many cleaners security guards and clerks on.minimum wage would you take pleasure in seeing burned alive?

The judges have not revoked article 50. They have quite rightly quoshed a decision that even your poster boy Farage thought unlawful.

Perspective!

Thats a valid point. I accept that I was wrong in my desire to torch the place. But I am voicing a frustration that millions of others are feeling right now and what I feel that many of you Remainers are unable or unwilling to comprehend.

Can you give me a single reason why I should not be highly f***ed off with all levels of our executive at the moment after the assurances it gave us that our vote on June 23rd would matter? And why I should place any faith in voting in any referendum, ever again?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

silvertop Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.45pm
Originally posted by tome The problem with the referendum is it posed a simple question to a complex problem. It was in reality 'keep things at they are' versus 'change'. But no one was clear what the leave, or change scenario would actually be. While I don't agree with Corbyn on everything, the idea to work out some options for what leave could mean if it was voted for, then go back to the people with those options and remain is what should have happened in the first place. The 1st para answers the point head on. As for all the threats of mass unrest and election boycott, please! A gaggle of elderly bigots scraping their Zimmer frames about. I think the system will cope. However, like I said, our route is still leave. You act like you've lost already. You rabid conspiracy theorists need more spine.

silvertop

Portishead 24 Sep 19 9.45pm

Originally posted by tome

The 1st para answers the point head on.

As for all the threats of mass unrest and election boycott, please! A gaggle of elderly bigots scraping their Zimmer frames about. I think the system will cope.

However, like I said, our route is still leave. You act like you've lost already. You rabid conspiracy theorists need more spine.

tome Inner Tantalus Time. 24 Sep 19 9.46pm
Originally posted by Matov Thats a valid point. I accept that I was wrong in my desire to torch the place. But I am voicing a frustration that millions of others are feeling right now and what I feel that many of you Remainers are unable or unwilling to comprehend. Can you give me a single reason why I should not be highly f*ed off with all levels of our executive at the moment after the assurances it gave us that our vote on June 23rd would matter? And why I should place any faith in voting in any referendum, ever again? I think whichever way people voted in the referendum, most of them are pretty pissed off. That's the problem with a relatively tight vote - there is no consensus on the best scenario because they all seem bad. A one and a two...**

tome

Inner Tantalus Time. 24 Sep 19 9.46pm

Originally posted by Matov

I think whichever way people voted in the referendum, most of them are pretty pissed off. That's the problem with a relatively tight vote - there is no consensus on the best scenario because they all seem bad.

A one and a two...

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 24 Sep 19 9.50pm
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger Calling for a no deal and leaving it on the table are not the same thing. Do not persist with this mealy mouthed two step if you really only seek to Revoke article 50. Well, as mentioned many times, I don’t. So I’ll keep on mealing on. Just because I don’t fit into a stereotypical remainer / leaver box doesn’t mean I’m misrepresenting my point of view. That would be a complete waste of time and energy. That may be, but I don’t control a split parliament. I still think that a deal as I’ve laid out is possible. As much as leavers like to say remainer MPs are blocking Brexit, leaver MPs are doing almost as good a job by blocking anything other than a no deal. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 24 Sep 19 9.50pm

Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger

Calling for a no deal and leaving it on the table are not the same thing.
Do not persist with this mealy mouthed two step if you really only seek to Revoke article 50.

Well, as mentioned many times, I don’t. So I’ll keep on mealing on. Just because I don’t fit into a stereotypical remainer / leaver box doesn’t mean I’m misrepresenting my point of view. That would be a complete waste of time and energy.

That may be, but I don’t control a split parliament. I still think that a deal as I’ve laid out is possible. As much as leavers like to say remainer MPs are blocking Brexit, leaver MPs are doing almost as good a job by blocking anything other than a no deal.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Matov 24 Sep 19 9.50pm
Originally posted by silvertop The 1st para answers the point head on. As for all the threats of mass unrest and election boycott, please! A gaggle of elderly bigots scraping their Zimmer frames about. I think the system will cope. However, like I said, our route is still leave. You act like you've lost already. You rabid conspiracy theorists need more spine. I said a referendum boycott. And you have not answered my question. Why would a second referendum, on the back of the first one not being enacted as we were promised, have any more credibility? What would be the point in voting in it if Remain is still an option. I have conceded, through gritted teeth and still willing to dispute the logic, that a public vote on say a Leave with no deal v leaving with an agreed deal might have a validity but why would a Remain option feature? It lost. Was rejected. It does not deserve a second chance. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 9.50pm

Originally posted by silvertop

The 1st para answers the point head on.

As for all the threats of mass unrest and election boycott, please! A gaggle of elderly bigots scraping their Zimmer frames about. I think the system will cope.

However, like I said, our route is still leave. You act like you've lost already. You rabid conspiracy theorists need more spine.

I said a referendum boycott. And you have not answered my question. Why would a second referendum, on the back of the first one not being enacted as we were promised, have any more credibility? What would be the point in voting in it if Remain is still an option.

I have conceded, through gritted teeth and still willing to dispute the logic, that a public vote on say a Leave with no deal v leaving with an agreed deal might have a validity but why would a Remain option feature? It lost. Was rejected. It does not deserve a second chance.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 24 Sep 19 9.53pm
Originally posted by Matov I said a referendum boycott. And you have not answered my question. Why would a second referendum, on the back of the first one not being enacted as we were promised, have any more credibility? What would be the point in voting in it if Remain is still an option. I have conceded, through gritted teeth and still willing to dispute the logic, that a public vote on say a Leave with no deal v leaving with an agreed deal might have a validity but why would a Remain option feature? It lost. Was rejected. It does not deserve a second chance. A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea) I do however understand the reasoning behind including remain. It’s been 3 years, and I’d wager most semi-intellectual people on both sides know a lot more about what they voted for than 3 years ago. That alone is reason enough. Time has not stood still. If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic. Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

SW19 CPFC

Addiscombe West 24 Sep 19 9.53pm

Originally posted by Matov

A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea)

I do however understand the reasoning behind including remain. It’s been 3 years, and I’d wager most semi-intellectual people on both sides know a lot more about what they voted for than 3 years ago. That alone is reason enough. Time has not stood still.

If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic.

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

chris123 hove actually 24 Sep 19 9.56pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea) I do however understand the reasoning behind including remain. It’s been 3 years, and I’d wager most semi-intellectual people on both sides know a lot more about what they voted for than 3 years ago. That alone is reason enough. Time has not stood still. If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic. Is the Union less federal?

chris123

hove actually 24 Sep 19 9.56pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea)

If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic.

Is the Union less federal?

Matov 24 Sep 19 9.59pm
Originally posted by SW19 CPFC A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea) I do however understand the reasoning behind including remain. It’s been 3 years, and I’d wager most semi-intellectual people on both sides know a lot more about what they voted for than 3 years ago. That alone is reason enough. Time has not stood still. If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic. What logic? How do you define 'semi-intellectual' people? You berated me for being unreasonable and I conceded the point? What does intellect have to do with the reality that Remain was an option in the first referendum and it lost. So therefore if you now want the decision from that first one to be more specific, were is the logic in offering the losing option again? We leave and then hold a referendum on rejoining, it is a fresh question being asked but all a second referendum is about is clarifying what type of leave people might want. If you want it re-run with the same question then fair enough but you don't. "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Matov

24 Sep 19 9.59pm

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

A second referendum would be nuts (and a bad idea)

If you don’t understand that you’re blind. You don’t have to like it, but you can’t deny the logic.

What logic? How do you define 'semi-intellectual' people? You berated me for being unreasonable and I conceded the point?

What does intellect have to do with the reality that Remain was an option in the first referendum and it lost. So therefore if you now want the decision from that first one to be more specific, were is the logic in offering the losing option again?

We leave and then hold a referendum on rejoining, it is a fresh question being asked but all a second referendum is about is clarifying what type of leave people might want.

If you want it re-run with the same question then fair enough but you don't.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Page 1296 of 1552 < 1292 1293 1294 1295 1296 1297 1298 1299 1300 >

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

The Brexit Thread (LOCKED)

Site Map