Should the UK remain a member of the EU

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

[Bjornebye]

5 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

The second referendum option got more votes though. Whatever option the government moves forward with needs to go to a public vote.

Absolutely. 

[Dr Nowt]

3 minutes ago, Mudface said:

Free stuff or we riot. I need bread and circuses, ffs.

Just the bread still required in that case.

[Numero Veinticinco]

More than happy for May to tag on a ‘subject to a Stay vs May’ referendum line on’t bottom of the MV3 and for it to pass. 

[aRdja]

How can we blame Jeremy Corbyn for this now lads?

[Boss]

What's the purpose of a public vote if you're only willing to listen to one side?

 

If Leave wins again, it'll be advisory. If Remain wins, binding. That's not democracy.

[Mudface]

Just now, viRdjil said:

How can we blame Jeremy Corbyn for this now lads?

 

Labour MPs who voted against or abstained on the confirmatory vote motion. Usual suspects, and some rather surprising ones like Kinnock, Nandy and Jarvis.

[cloggypop]

42 minutes ago, Red Phoenix said:

They didn't even add the bulldoze parliament into the river option, cowardly scum. I'm calling my local mp about this.

 

*checks local mp*

 

David Davis.

 

Fucking Tory bastards.

Wool

[SasaS]

25 minutes ago, M_B said:

The Customs Union vote was very close and the DUP abstained. That indicates that is the way forward after May's deal fails.

 

According to the BBC graphic, DUP voted against.

[cloggypop]

13 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

How can we blame Jeremy Corbyn for this now lads?

I'm sure RAWK has the answer 

[Numero Veinticinco]

16 minutes ago, Boss said:

What's the purpose of a public vote if you're only willing to listen to one side?

 

If Leave wins again, it'll be advisory. If Remain wins, binding. That's not democracy.

The only problem I’ve got is that you’ve totally made that up. 

 

The purpose of a public vote would be to break the deadlock between parliament to m all options. It would be to ratify the government’s deal or to reject it. It would be to give additional democracy where it is desperately needed. It would, for once and for all, chose between May’s deal and not wanting to leave. Lots has changed since the last vote - for example, we now know what Brexit withdrawal would look be - so checking in an additional democracy if vote so the people can decide based on new information is more democratic than not doing it. There’s every chance for leave voters to say ‘yes, we still want to go now that we know what May’s agreement is’. 

 

Why wouldn’t you espousing democracy, want more democracy? Be honest about it, it’s because you think the British people might change their mind. And you personally don’t want that. So... maybe stop lecturing on democracy and save yourself the ignominy of looking so duplicitous and dishonest. 

[Numero Veinticinco]

22 minutes ago, Mudface said:

 

Labour MPs who voted against or abstained on the confirmatory vote motion. Usual suspects, and some rather surprising ones like Kinnock, Nandy and Jarvis.

It’s the hard left wingers that fuck me off the most. Like a shot the the heart that. Cruddas. Skinner. Sort yourself out. 

[Anubis]

1 minute ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

It’s the hard left wingers that fuck me off the most. Like a shot the the heart that. Cruddas. Skinner. Sort yourself out. 

Not centrist heroes like Nandy, Kinnock and Del Piero?

 

Although In Kinnock’s case it could just be that he didn’t understand the voting paper and placed a few random Xs in the boxes.

[Numero Veinticinco]

1 minute ago, Anubis said:

Not centrist heroes like Nandy, Kinnock and Del Piero?

Nah, you expect that sort of shit from certain types. The entire lot should stop being cunts. 

[SasaS]

21 minutes ago, SasaS said:

 

According to the BBC graphic, DUP voted against.

 

Hmmm, they seem to have voted against everything.

[Boss]

Just now, Numero Veinticinco said:

The only problem I’ve got is that you’ve totally made that up. 

 

The purpose of a public vote would be to break the deadlock between parliament to m all options. It would be to ratify the government’s deal or to reject it. It would be to give additional democracy where it is desperately needed. It would, for once and for all, chose between May’s deal and not wanting to leave. Lots has changed since the last vote - for example, we now know what Brexit withdrawal would look be - so checking in an additional democracy if vote so the people can decide based on new information is more democratic than not doing it. There’s every chance for leave voters to say ‘yes, we still want to go now that we know what May’s agreement is’. 

 

Why wouldn’t you espousing democracy, want more democracy? Be honest about it, it’s because you think the British people might change their mind. And you personally don’t want that. So... maybe stop lecturing on democracy and save yourself the ignominy of looking so duplicitous and dishonest. 

 

Calling for another referendum without the result of the first vote being enacted is undemocratic. Calling another referendum on the premise of May's deal vs Remain is also undemocratic because nobody wants May's deal - Brexiteers included, so that's a Kangaroo referendum. 

 

If you have multiple options on the ballot for Leave and one option for Remain, then that's undemocratic because it's a purposeful attempt to split the Leave vote. The only way a referendum would have any legitimacy is if it's a straight shoot between Remain and Leave again, with a legally binding responsibility to deliver on the outcome. 

 

I'm fine with that happening. I don't think many people are though - which exposes their duplicitousness and their dishonesty, not mine.

[Jose Jones]

1 minute ago, SasaS said:

 

Hmmm, they seem to have voted against everything.

Because they are pro-Brexit but only where it doesn’t affect NI’s relationship with the UK or Ireland.  Which is completely impossible.

 

[Dr Arthur De Sabre]

1 hour ago, Anubis said:

So no preferred option with Ken Clarke’s customs union coming closest.

Sounds like something running in the 3.20 at Chepstow 

[Skidfingers McGonical]

49 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

The second referendum option got more votes though. Whatever option the government moves forward with needs to go to a public vote.

I’m quite curious. What if the people say no? Does Parliament keep going and forth with more people’s votes till they say yes?

[Anubis]

I think we’re all ignoring the obvious way out of the deadlock. Trial by combat.

 

Remain and Leave MPs each choose a champion. Fight to the death.

[Jose Jones]

15 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Calling for another referendum without the result of the first vote being enacted is undemocratic. Calling another referendum on the premise of May's deal vs Remain is also undemocratic because nobody wants May's deal - Brexiteers included, so that's a Kangaroo referendum. 

 

If you have multiple options on the ballot for Leave and one option for Remain, then that's undemocratic because it's a purposeful attempt to split the Leave vote. The only way a referendum would have any legitimacy is if it's a straight shoot between Remain and Leave again, with a legally binding responsibility to deliver on the outcome. 

 

I'm fine with that happening. I don't think many people are though - which exposes their duplicitousness and their dishonesty, not mine.

 

I don't think your logic works very well here.  If May's deal (negotiated and proposed by the PM) is the only one that gets through Parliament, then surely a second referendum as a straight shoot between Remain and Leave means that the Leave option is going to be May's deal.

 

How is that therefore a Kangaroo referendum?

[Numero Veinticinco]

23 minutes ago, Boss said:

Calling for another referendum without the result of the first vote being enacted is undemocratic.

No it isn’t. If you think it is, I urge you to look up what democracy actually means. It *coukd* be argued that it would be undemocratic to give the same vote again without the first being enacted, but even that has little merit. It, quite literally, gets more democratic every time you put it to the people to decide. You can absolutely argue that democracy isn’t good or that you think some democracy is better than lots. What you can’t credibly do, because of the meaning of the term, is argue that giving more choice and say in the process is not democratic. But it isn’t the same vote, it would be a vote that would give additional choice based on new information. The country whispered with a tiny majority that they wanted to leave, fine... that ball is in motion. Nobody said what type of leave they wanted. The government to the non-binding vote and ran an election saying how they’d do it. They tried and failed to do it. The thing they did manage to do was rejected. So you think, rather than give more power over the way they are ruled to the electorate - the literal meaning of democracy - we should just hope we knew what they meant and march on out in any old fashion that meets the ‘well, we left didn’t we’ criteria... no. More democracy can’t mean less democracy. You’re free to chose to leave. Or stay. The rest is bluster. 

 

You saying that having a redo of the referendum in the same terms would be more democratic is quite an illustration of just how far you should be trusted on this subject, in my opinion. That is to say, not a lot. 

 

I’m happy for there to be as many referendums as required, because I believe in democracy. Presuming things about people’s views on that, then castigating them as duplicitous based on nothing more than that fantastic assumption is ridiculous. 

 

[Strontium]

23 minutes ago, Skidfingers McGonical said:

I’m quite curious. What if the people say no? Does Parliament keep going and forth with more people’s votes till they say yes?

 

Just make it a straight choice between May's deal and Revoke/Remain. If Leave still won now that everyone knows exactly what it entails, nobody could have any complaints. 

[cloggypop]

28 minutes ago, Boss said:

 

Calling for another referendum without the result of the first vote being enacted is undemocratic. Calling another referendum on the premise of May's deal vs Remain is also undemocratic because nobody wants May's deal - Brexiteers included, so that's a Kangaroo referendum. 

 

If you have multiple options on the ballot for Leave and one option for Remain, then that's undemocratic because it's a purposeful attempt to split the Leave vote. The only way a referendum would have any legitimacy is if it's a straight shoot between Remain and Leave again, with a legally binding responsibility to deliver on the outcome. 

 

I'm fine with that happening. I don't think many people are though - which exposes their duplicitousness and their dishonesty, not mine.

How about a second referendum that isn't just advisory and therefore entitles the likes of me that has actually been integrated within Europe for years to actually vote on my future rather than driving me towards rejecting the UK and obtaining a different passport? 

[Numero Veinticinco]

6 minutes ago, Strontium Dog said:

 

Just make it a straight choice between May's deal and Revoke/Remain. If Leave still won now that everyone knows exactly what it entails, nobody could have any complaints. 

Exactly. A cleave vote for May’s deal means... enact May’s deal. We thought about it and we want to fuck ourselves in the arse for no good reason. Fair enough, let me fetch the lube. 

 

Not needed. We are going in dry.