When you stand on the extremes, your view is always going to be distorted.

You have no interest in saving "this country"! Your only interest is in saving your own view of want you want our country to be, and then imposing that vision on everyone else.

You cannot tolerate change that doesn't suit you, and refuse to adapt to suit the new environment. You are a social dinosaur waiting for the asteroid.

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.

Pretty much this, what a state of affairs when Macron will probably win as the " not Le Pen " candidate.

Take Le Pen out of the mix and it would be very interesting as Macron has not much support as a candidate after five years of merde

Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance.

Ain't dat the truth

Total rubbish.

All I ever wanted was for our Parliamentary democracy to work the way it is intended to work. I was against a referendum in the first place, as the issues were too complex to be left to the winds of chance implicit in a political campaign, especially one which was tainted by foreign interference and blatant lies.

Parliament, having given the result of that referendum legitimacy, then had the opportunity to double-check whether the mood of the country remained the same, after so much time had passed and the understanding of the issues had improved. They bottled it, through a lack of leadership by the opposition and a level of fear in the "Brexit at any costs" mob. The latter approving of referendums when the result went their way, but against them when there was a chance they might not. They're not democrats at all. They are all political opportunists, like Johnson. Interested only in what they perceive as their best interests, and not that of the country as a whole. They sold the country down the river with scumbag tactics and catchy slogans straight from the world of soap powder ads. Which is no way to run a country.

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.

So if Remain had won you would have wanted you would have wanted the same thing to happen?

I doubt that the people at the top carrying out brexit due to the public wanting it; did it for a tick in the box. They clearly did it because they feel it is in the best interest of UK.plc.
Time will tell if it was the correct decision.

Totally different circumstances. Elections are checked, every 5 years. Membership of the EU was last checked 40 years previously. When the vote was held in 2016 the difficulties in securing a "deal" were unknown to everyone. The Leave campaign had promised it could be done in a matter of days, with the EU desperate to make sure the UK market was secure for them. 4 years later, we knew better about that, and also about many aspects of us withdrawing. We needed to confirm given all we now knew. If you set off on a journey not knowing what lay around the first corner, but were promised a smooth road and sunshine, only to find lots of bumps and rain, would you not want to be asked if you wanted to continue, or choose another route?

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.

No it wasn't. The 1975 referendum was on membership of the EEC which was a trading arrangement, not the non-democratic federation that the EU is.

The totally different circumstance is that the EEC we voted to remain part of consisted of 8 other countries not the ever-expanding entity it has become.

That argument has some merit in asking Parliament to review our membership, and even to conduct a widespread consultation process. Nothing is ever cast in stone, so making sure our best interests continue to be served makes sense.

It is not though an argument for throwing such an important decision to the winds of chance involved in a referendum. Unless a high bar for any change is set.

It is also not an argument in the circumstances that embroiled Brexit and all the shenanigans that emerged between 2016 and 2020 for not seeking confirmation. It ought to have happened. I would have preferred Parliament to have done it, but can see why it would have had to be another referendum.

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.