TE, there is little point in engaging with ideologues, particularly those who are superior in intelligence.

Lack of engagement and audience will hopefully reduce the amount of posts

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.

Exactly the argument that it should have been left to Parliament to decide doesn't fly. It was left to Parliament and they decided to offer the nation a referendum and after 3 years of nonsense agreed to implement the result.

Apparently MPs are the "experts" and should be free to decide our best interests as long as they decide in the right way. When they don't they become party drones following the orders of Tory boy, Nigel Farage and the other white racists.

Sigh.

One more point

Then what happened?

The referendum result was close. Our security forces confirmed interference. The promised easy-peasy "deal" with an EU desperate not to be cut off from our market proved to be political bs. It took 4 years of tortuous brinkmanship to stitch together a bureaucratic nightmare rag-bag of unworkable procedures and a government being sanctioned by the Supreme Court. Parliament then had the opportunity to step in and accept that their decision to set all this in motion had proved flawed and needed to be verified. Due to a government using marketing slogans instead of policy (Get Brexit done) and an opposition leader willing to put his own vanity above the national interest, Parliament bottled it. Despite some brave souls standing up for reason, and being thrown out of the Tory Party for their honesty.

So whilst you can defend offering the initial referendum, which I oppose anyway, on the basis that isn't how we govern in our Parliamentary democracy, you cannot defend what happened subsequently. Parliament's responsibilities didn't cease when they decided to hold a referendum. If they needed to pass legislation to enact our withdrawal, then they had the responsibility, after all the unforeseen events, to double-check whether that remained the wish of the people before doing so. They failed us.

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.

If one referendum was wrong how can two be better? Or more until remain got the desired result?

That's a complete "red-herring". Any changes, of that kind, to the EU have to be agreed by us. They have in the past, in the correct way. In Parliament. They cannot be imposed on us. There is not the slightest chance the UK would ever agree to become part of a "federal" Europe. Indeed, I cannot see this actually happening anywhere in Europe. I can envisage greater degrees of co-operation between some states, resulting in inner, and outer, groups, but never the kind of pan-European super state some EU haters describe as a bogey-man to justify their hatred.

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.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

In your opinion, and if they had voted against a referendum or against the result of the referendum you would have been lauding their wisdom.

One more point

I completely agree with WE that holding a referendum on such a complex matter was foolish and arrogant - all designed to see off the hard right in the Conservative party. Governments are elected to take the really big decisions that will affect the country in a major way for many, many decades. Such matters should not be put back to the people in a highly simplistic yes/no manner in my judgement.

Its also worth remembering that there was nothing on the voting paper about staying/leaving the single market, customs union and essentially splitting off NI. Some of them emerged from Theresa Mays famous red lines - driven by the ultra Brexiteers who have come to dominate the Conservative party - and, of course, Johnson's compromises on NI that he appeared not to understand. However, it is these decisions that are and will continue to have such a severe economic impact. It's no surprise to me that there is very little money available to help mitigate the cost of living issues or the tsunami of poverty that is coming down the tracks. Whilst admittedly Covid spending has been a factor so too has the terms of withdrawal from the EU with the implications becoming clearer as each day passes.

Let's try and put some facts behind this discussion...
The UK voted to join the EEC back in the 1970's. At the time it was a trading block of about a dozen Western European nations. I would be tempted to say all with similar desires.
During the next 40 years or so, the trading block got it's own flag, anthem, currency and numerous layers of management to ensure that the trading block could advance, taking in another 15 members, some from the former Eastern Bloc.
All of the main UK political parties were basically in agreement to an increasing EU involvement in our lives, hence the UK Electorate could only complain without anything radical being done to reverse or stop the process. Hence, UKIP was born to fill the vacuum left behind by the main parties.
Suddenly there was a need for something to happen as it was evident that anti-EU feeling was stronger than the Government realised. Hence the promise of a referendum, which unfortunately for the political parties didn't go the way they thought it would/ or hoped. Then a panic to reverse the process by those who had most to lose. NB Cameron, Clegg resigning pretty quickly. If you believe in a democratic process you would respect the vote and make the best of it. If you only believe in a democratic process that only returns what you want it to, then maybe some self-reflection is needed.

hats off to palace, they were always gonna be louder, and hate to say it but they were impressive ALL bouncing and singing.

It makes a refreshing change to read a post containing reason and good judgement among the entrenched positions formed in 2016 that refuse to acknowledge the passage of time and the events that take place during it.

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.