Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Deptford Draylons said:
Coolbanana said:
Nonsense.
Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
I'd love to believe you were as fair minded as you type, but I suspect you are like other Remainers here who were happy to be taken in by a referendum and then thought it a bit off those of an opposing side got another 40 years later. What I despise is the attitude it was a settled thing and should never have been questioned again by the public. That's a rather arrogant attitude to take in keeping what you want and giving no chance of a change.Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
You could state clearly why you think its right to try and reverse the result before its even been enacted. The last elections had a party offering exactly what you want and a second chance to vote again, but their vote share went down to 7% . So is that the mandate to vote again ?
The wanting to reverse the election result analogy is still a fairly good one. It sounds like you and others want to vote again before we actually leave the EU and before the result of the referendum has been enacted. That is broadly the equivalent to waking up on the morning after an election result to hear Corbyn has won and then demanding another vote before his car arrives in Downing Street.
If you want to make a case for voting again before we leave and within the next two years, lets hear it.
Pan Pan Pan said:
The remainers only want referenda to continue until they get the result `they' want, after which all referenda on the matter will be banned, That is the way their highly selective democracy operates.
Yep,I'm wondering why Ireland aren't having another vote. Seems to have stopped when it went a certain way.Deptford Draylons said:
Coolbanana said:
Nonsense.
Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
What I despise is the attitude it was a settled thing and should never have been questioned again by the public. That's a rather arrogant attitude to take in keeping what you want and giving no chance of a change.Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
rs1952 said:
Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"
After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.
Apparently, nobody now gives a flying f
k about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.
It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.
So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...
I don't think results of any vote stand for eternity...but what happens is future change is brought about by the results of different votes.After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.
Apparently, nobody now gives a flying f
k about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.
So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...
Material change needs to prompt this...and as we haven't yet implemented the vote we had, material change isn't a feasible concept IMO at present.
As for your vote in 1975, it's interesting that the majority of those who would have been able to vote in that one now vote to leave. That would seem like a pretty big material change in circumstances to have prompted the vote last year and to see it through. We can then worry about whether to have a vote to join the EU once we've left
I do think referenda should be limited in scope as I've mentioned elsewhere. Also as noted elsewhere I am convinced that had our leaders held a vote at each treaty change, clearly articulating both the pros and cons of each change, we would not be in the position we're in now - we'd either have left a long time ago or would be remaining in a much happier, more stable EU (at least from our perspective).
Pan Pan Pan said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Coolbanana said:
Nonsense.
Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
I'd love to believe you were as fair minded as you type, but I suspect you are like other Remainers here who were happy to be taken in by a referendum and then thought it a bit off those of an opposing side got another 40 years later. What I despise is the attitude it was a settled thing and should never have been questioned again by the public. That's a rather arrogant attitude to take in keeping what you want and giving no chance of a change.Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
You could state clearly why you think its right to try and reverse the result before its even been enacted. The last elections had a party offering exactly what you want and a second chance to vote again, but their vote share went down to 7% . So is that the mandate to vote again ?
The wanting to reverse the election result analogy is still a fairly good one. It sounds like you and others want to vote again before we actually leave the EU and before the result of the referendum has been enacted. That is broadly the equivalent to waking up on the morning after an election result to hear Corbyn has won and then demanding another vote before his car arrives in Downing Street.
If you want to make a case for voting again before we leave and within the next two years, lets hear it.
It seems like a sensible choice to be given to us based on what the final plan is - there probably will be leavers/remainers who may think its a bit of a crap deal but there would also be leavers/remainers even who wont think it goes far enough or goes too far. Its like a mate asking you to come out for the night and you would be happy to go to a pub but not a club and waiting until its know before saying yes
In reality though its actually telling your mate you would go out but then being a bit wooly and only agreeing when you find out where he is going and so your mate is pissed at you. Hence in reality it cant happen because we already said we would go on a piss up no matter what that entails.
Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 14th August 13:11
jonnyb said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Coolbanana said:
Nonsense.
Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
What I despise is the attitude it was a settled thing and should never have been questioned again by the public. That's a rather arrogant attitude to take in keeping what you want and giving no chance of a change.Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.
The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.
As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.
No excuses!
What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.
That's how it works, folks!
Nothing stopped anyone from voting for the one main party that wanted a second referendum at the GE, but the attitude from some here is that it is grossly unfair and a trap to expect anyone to have voted for the LibDems , while out the other side of the mouth comes a long stream of predictions about how leaving is the ruination of the country and the collapse economically. It just seems rather at odds that people expect a vote now to overturn the result, yet didn't vote for one and just expect it to be given to them and also don't really wish to comment on why it should be overturned ( if you are being honest ) before the result is allowed to stand.
My personal opinion is that at the current time it would be fair to leave it at least 5 years after we have left if not 10- 20. I can't stop anyone from standing at an election on offering another though, but it was tested a few months back and failed. Who knows what will happen at the next GE though.
Deptford Draylons said:
Disastrous said:
Why does it annoy the Brexit voters so much that some remainers continue to loan about it and 'won't get on board'?
You won - get over it!
You moaning about it doesn't really bother me. Trying to reverse the result before its even been enacted upon does bother me. You won - get over it!
Murph7355 said:
I don't think results of any vote stand for eternity...but what happens is future change is brought about by the results of different votes.
Material change needs to prompt this...and as we haven't yet implemented the vote we had, material change isn't a feasible concept IMO at present.
.
There has to be a 'cadence' for democracy. You vote on something, and then you have long enough period to find out if your vote had a positive or negative change. I'm not sure how often democratic rule books spell it out, but you can't just keep on having constant votes or the system just grinds to a halt.Material change needs to prompt this...and as we haven't yet implemented the vote we had, material change isn't a feasible concept IMO at present.
.
It also has to be recognised that to some extent, governing bodies have to sometimes make the difficult decisions that the 'man on the street' is unwilling to make. There really isn't a land of milk and honey where everyone gets exactly what they want, and it's a false promise to suggest that if we just vote the right way we'll get it.
Disastrous said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Disastrous said:
Why does it annoy the Brexit voters so much that some remainers continue to loan about it and 'won't get on board'?
You won - get over it!
You moaning about it doesn't really bother me. Trying to reverse the result before its even been enacted upon does bother me. You won - get over it!
No one here as I know has the power to offer a referendum, if that's what you meant. I admit I could have worded it better.
Deptford Draylons said:
Who knows what will happen at the next GE though.
I'm not convinced an election has ever been won or lost on Europe, including 2017. Whilst some politicians obsess about it, few public do. I'm not even convinced many UKIP voters had it as a high priority in the end - it was just a convenient place for parking a protest vote.Parties which put EU membership at the heart of their campaign are probably making an electoral mistake, as 2017 and the LibDems demonstrated.
Deptford Draylons said:
If you indicate you don't care about the result and want a vote today to reverse the the decision, then yes, that bothers me.
No one here as I know has the power to offer a referendum, if that's what you meant. I admit I could have worded it better.
Oh well!No one here as I know has the power to offer a referendum, if that's what you meant. I admit I could have worded it better.
It seems like a bit of waste of energy being bothered about things that can't affect the result IMO.
As many are keen to remind us, the vote was for leave and now it is happening. I don't especially feel obliged to agree with it or accept it tbh, as nothing I say or do will make the blindest bit of difference.
Had Remain won, I wouldn't expect Farage et al to disappear into the night either - just something that comes with the territory when a result doesn't go your way.
Disastrous said:
Deptford Draylons said:
If you indicate you don't care about the result and want a vote today to reverse the the decision, then yes, that bothers me.
No one here as I know has the power to offer a referendum, if that's what you meant. I admit I could have worded it better.
Oh well!No one here as I know has the power to offer a referendum, if that's what you meant. I admit I could have worded it better.
It seems like a bit of waste of energy being bothered about things that can't affect the result IMO.
As many are keen to remind us, the vote was for leave and now it is happening. I don't especially feel obliged to agree with it or accept it tbh, as nothing I say or do will make the blindest bit of difference.
Had Remain won, I wouldn't expect Farage et al to disappear into the night either - just something that comes with the territory when a result doesn't go your way.
You raise an interesting point re Farage moaning on had Remain won. It's often put about here as some kinda counter, but as yet without people really wishing to say more.
Sure, he would have campaigned on until he dropped, but then that is the same position as you are advocating here , which is fine.
I don't see it having been much more than that had Remain won. Would there have been any Gina Miller style high court cases or such division from MPs ? Do you think the Tory or Labour back bench Leavers would have done anything to try and force another referendum immediately on announcement of the result ? I don't see it. I think Ukip would have still have collapsed as a majority of the people having accepted the result and just moved on.
Disastrous said:
Had Remain won, I wouldn't expect Farage et al to disappear into the night either - just something that comes with the territory when a result doesn't go your way.
He might not have done but I suspect he'd have had little or no case. Unless and until there had been some sort of substantial change in the EU (new treaty or something) or the (minor) reforms Cameron agreed not happened it would have been a poor argument.Deptford Draylons said:
Well, it is a chat forum and you asked. If you say you are not happy and such I can respect that and it doesn't bother me so much. To be toys out the pram and screaming for another referendum now before we've even left is going to attract a certain amount of chat and ridicule.
You raise an interesting point re Farage moaning on had Remain won. It's often put about here as some kinda counter, but as yet without people really wishing to say more.
Sure, he would have campaigned on until he dropped, but then that is the same position as you are advocating here , which is fine.
I don't see it having been much more than that had Remain won. Would there have been any Gina Miller style high court cases or such division from MPs ? Do you think the Tory or Labour back bench Leavers would have done anything to try and force another referendum immediately on announcement of the result ? I don't see it. I think Ukip would have still have collapsed as a majority of the people having accepted the result and just moved on.
In fairness, Gina Miller only made sure that due parliamentary process was followed, right? I appreciate she was anti-Brexit but still, I think that for both sides, it is a good thing that Article 50 was triggered 'properly'...You raise an interesting point re Farage moaning on had Remain won. It's often put about here as some kinda counter, but as yet without people really wishing to say more.
Sure, he would have campaigned on until he dropped, but then that is the same position as you are advocating here , which is fine.
I don't see it having been much more than that had Remain won. Would there have been any Gina Miller style high court cases or such division from MPs ? Do you think the Tory or Labour back bench Leavers would have done anything to try and force another referendum immediately on announcement of the result ? I don't see it. I think Ukip would have still have collapsed as a majority of the people having accepted the result and just moved on.
You may be right about a remain result not attracting so much division but then, all that would have done would be continuing the status quo - a massive change is obviously going to stir up more response.
But Farage did say that anything more than (what was it, 60%) a landslide Remain win would be 'unfinished business' whatever that means.
I'm not in favour of another referendum especially, as I think we're in a precarious enough place already. I'd rather it hadn't happened at all but there we are. I sincerely wish that the terms of the referendum had set a 60% majority to record a win, as I feel this would have nipped all the in-fighting in the bud, regardless of the result but again, there we are.
I do think it's a bit naive of the Leave side to act surprised at people wanting to reverse the decision - I could have told you that's what would happen in the event of a Leave victory and I'm no political analyst...
Disastrous said:
Deptford Draylons said:
Well, it is a chat forum and you asked. If you say you are not happy and such I can respect that and it doesn't bother me so much. To be toys out the pram and screaming for another referendum now before we've even left is going to attract a certain amount of chat and ridicule.
You raise an interesting point re Farage moaning on had Remain won. It's often put about here as some kinda counter, but as yet without people really wishing to say more.
Sure, he would have campaigned on until he dropped, but then that is the same position as you are advocating here , which is fine.
I don't see it having been much more than that had Remain won. Would there have been any Gina Miller style high court cases or such division from MPs ? Do you think the Tory or Labour back bench Leavers would have done anything to try and force another referendum immediately on announcement of the result ? I don't see it. I think Ukip would have still have collapsed as a majority of the people having accepted the result and just moved on.
In fairness, Gina Miller only made sure that due parliamentary process was followed, right? I appreciate she was anti-Brexit but still, I think that for both sides, it is a good thing that Article 50 was triggered 'properly'...You raise an interesting point re Farage moaning on had Remain won. It's often put about here as some kinda counter, but as yet without people really wishing to say more.
Sure, he would have campaigned on until he dropped, but then that is the same position as you are advocating here , which is fine.
I don't see it having been much more than that had Remain won. Would there have been any Gina Miller style high court cases or such division from MPs ? Do you think the Tory or Labour back bench Leavers would have done anything to try and force another referendum immediately on announcement of the result ? I don't see it. I think Ukip would have still have collapsed as a majority of the people having accepted the result and just moved on.
You may be right about a remain result not attracting so much division but then, all that would have done would be continuing the status quo - a massive change is obviously going to stir up more response.
But Farage did say that anything more than (what was it, 60%) a landslide Remain win would be 'unfinished business' whatever that means.
I'm not in favour of another referendum especially, as I think we're in a precarious enough place already. I'd rather it hadn't happened at all but there we are. I sincerely wish that the terms of the referendum had set a 60% majority to record a win, as I feel this would have nipped all the in-fighting in the bud, regardless of the result but again, there we are.
I do think it's a bit naive of the Leave side to act surprised at people wanting to reverse the decision - I could have told you that's what would happen in the event of a Leave victory and I'm no political analyst...
Oh I'm not surprised Remain folk wanting to reverse the decision as such. The fact they barely disguise the contempt for the result does surprise me a bit, as does the expectation a second referendum should be on offer despite not willing to vote for a party offering it.
About the only Remain people I have respect for is those MPs who at least came out and voted against having a referendum at all. I didn't agree with them, but at least they were honest. Those more lightweight people who were like Paddy Ashdown and just expected a Remain vote and tried to further nail it down before the result by saying the result should be absolutely respected, are now the same type of people urging vote again before we even leave. That kinda attitude is was I find contemptible.
Deptford Draylons said:
On paper you can say that about Miller, in reality I think most knew it was her trying to stop it from happening, a trick she tried again at the GE in campaigning to select pro EU MPs. I'd love to believe she was all about process, but I don't buy it, she's now exposed herself as stopping it by any means.
Oh I'm not surprised Remain folk wanting to reverse the decision as such. The fact they barely disguise the contempt for the result does surprise me a bit, as does the expectation a second referendum should be on offer despite not willing to vote for a party offering it.
About the only Remain people I have respect for is those MPs who at least came out and voted against having a referendum at all. I didn't agree with them, but at least they were honest. Those more lightweight people who were like Paddy Ashdown and just expected a Remain vote and tried to further nail it down before the result by saying the result should be absolutely respected, are now the same type of people urging vote again before we even leave. That kinda attitude is was I find contemptible.
Yep,and those wanting 60%/65% etc are just as bad.51 has always been the line in most things in life.Oh I'm not surprised Remain folk wanting to reverse the decision as such. The fact they barely disguise the contempt for the result does surprise me a bit, as does the expectation a second referendum should be on offer despite not willing to vote for a party offering it.
About the only Remain people I have respect for is those MPs who at least came out and voted against having a referendum at all. I didn't agree with them, but at least they were honest. Those more lightweight people who were like Paddy Ashdown and just expected a Remain vote and tried to further nail it down before the result by saying the result should be absolutely respected, are now the same type of people urging vote again before we even leave. That kinda attitude is was I find contemptible.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff