[POLITICS] Brexit deadline

[TheIronRuler]

You've got to face the consequences of your actions like big boys. There was a vote on the matter - and those who voted agreed to leave the EU. The whole process was wrapped in smoke and mystery because it was never well-defined in the EU itself. The reason for that is, I believe, that they never expected anyone would actually up and leave once they got in.

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote! I suppose the people that don't like the fact Britain is leaving the EU would bombard regular voters in order to convince them to vote to stay - perhaps they think they could make a better job next time? Have a re-do vote? Throw a little temper-tantrum because they didn't get it their way?

If you're not a Briton, or if you hadn't voted either way in the referendum, then I don't even think you can honestly argue in good faith about disregarding the opinions of so many people on the matter because it's an inconvenience to you.

BTW I wanted to check R&P yesterday and it was closed! I was so eager to read how people accepted the fact Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated from "collusion" with the Russians. The universe just keeps on giving bad news to commies. Thanks, universe!

 

[Seanchaidh]

That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost!

Yeah, that's why political offices are held for life. If you didn't want that candidate, you should have just campaigned harder in the first place!

Or maybe the aim of democratic processes is executing current public opinion, not that of three years ago; if the UK wants to vote a second time, there's nothing wrong with that.

BTW I wanted to check R&P yesterday and it was closed! I was so eager to read how people accepted the fact Trump did nothing wrong and was exonerated from "collusion" with the Russians. The universe just keeps on giving bad news to commies. Thanks, universe!

Please stop calling boring centrists without a compelling political vision beyond not being Trump 'commies'. It's insulting to commies.

 

[Trunkage]

Would you believe that Theresa May is going to try for a fourth vote? What on earth is wrong with that woman?

I would dare say that this is literally all May can get from the EU. There is NO other plan forward, other than second referendum or very hard brexit

 

[Trunkage]

Leave. Face the consequences. Move on. Most importantly, stop panicking.

Leave how? This entire situation was caused by the 'Leave' option not being defined at all during the Referendum, meaning that people were voting to leave for wildly different reasons.

Merely restating that we should leave, still without defining it, means approximately bugger all.

I'd assume Farage style. No plan. Just go.

Farage doesn't understand that the EU has been nice negotiate currently, leaving is going to make it worse.

 

[Agema]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

The biggest issue is the remain campaign actually told people what a disaster this would be, it is just people didn't understand that they were not exaggerating but in fact were telling them the truth. This is my issue with campaigns that knowingly lie to the people. The people who lied are not being held accountable for their lies, hell they are not even going to have to pay the consequences for them as some of them are actually leaving the country to suffer through their lies without them. The lack of accountability for those telling the lies is what allows this to blow up as bad as it does. The reason they cannot even agree on Brexit negotiations is due to people STILL thinking they will get the lie even after they have been told it was always a lie. How do you resolve such things when people are literally not getting what they thought they voted for in the first place and it is not even remotely possible for them to do so? There should be some way to hold people personally accountable for telling lies that impact peoples lives that actually helps prevent this from happening repeatedly.

 

[TheIronRuler]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

 

[TheIronRuler]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

.
No. They should get a re-election vote if their favorite candidate didn't win. That's what I think the three main gentlemen in this thread are essentially saying.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

Intentionally defrauding, for example, if Obama had promised to close GITMO, but instead expanded it and put more people in it, he should be held accountable. In Trump's case, he promised not to cut medicare, social security, and then specifically proposed cuts. He should be held accountable for that. When Trump lied about preexisting conditions coverage and then not even having a plan but instead is just trying to cut them, he should be held accountable.

In the case of the Brexit, they claimed they would have more money for NHS, the next day after winning said that was a lie and there would be massive cuts instead. They told people they would be able to limit freedom of movement while remaining in the single market to keep the economic sector from collapsing, which was a lie as well. Now people who believed that they would have increase funding for NHS and still have access to the single market that voted to leave want to change their votes due to being lied to.

More than 2.6 million people have abandoned their support for Brexit and now back staying in the EU, a major study has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

So what about fraud? If candidates actively lie to the people and then do the opposite of what they stated they would do, or misrepresented themselves, should they not be held accountable? The leave campaign actively promoted a fraud, they admitted this the day after they won. It is not just people who voted to remain that are pissed, there are plenty of people who believed the lie and now they found out they were lied to and want to change their vote.

I think it is important we start holding people accountable for fraud or we can never actually have people know what they are voting for in the first place. People are voting for one thing because they are told this is what it means, then they do the opposite in reality once they win. If we allow the rampant lying to continue, this will only get worse, not better.

When there is cheating, they redo elections. They should classify actively defrauding the public as cheating as well.

How far does that extend though?

One of Obama's campaign promises was that he would close Guantanamo Bay. This is something that he never did. Should there have been consequences for that during his presidential term? What would those consequences have been? Does Obama not honoring a campaign promise make him a bad president?

What about if third parties prevent a campaign promise from being achieved? Trump is attempting to get his border wall built despite pretty much everyone thinking it's a stupid idea, and congress isn't letting him. If he doesn't get it built would that be his fault for promising it, or would should the congress people who are standing in his way experience some repercussions for making it impossible for the president to fulfill his stupid stupid promise?

What about if during the election a candidate made promises that they thought were feasible and then it turned out they weren't because they received additional information once they were elected and had more access? What if Bernie gets elected and it turns out that all of his campaign promises are impossible to fulfill in the 4-8 years that he has as president, should he immediately be impeached for defrauding the public who voted him in specifically to fulfill those promises?

.
No. They should get a re-election vote if their favorite candidate didn't win. That's what I think the three main gentlemen in this thread are essentially saying.

Is that what these people are saying too?

More than 2.6 million people have abandoned their support for Brexit and now back staying in the EU, a major study has concluded.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-referendum-millions-leave-voters-best-for-britain-no-deal-theresa-may-conservative-government-a8521346.html

 

[Seanchaidh]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

Have you ever wondered why political offices in countries that want to convince their people that they are democratic typically don't last for the entire life of the ones elected? Brexit is something that would likely last much longer than that in its implications. So how could it be 'democratic' to hold to a years old narrow majority when the people feel otherwise later? The Brexit vote was nearly three years ago and real action hasn't been taken yet-- only political maneuvering. If the people feel differently now, then they should absolutely be heard. There is nothing 'democratic' about ignoring them now.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

If you're a Briton, and you voted in the referendum to stay in the EU, and the vote didn't pass your way - then so be it. You could have convinced more people to come out and vote - your friends, family, co-workers. That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote!

It is literally democratic to allow the people to freely vote on absolutely anything, at any time. It might not necessarily be wise or constructive, but it's surely democratic.

* * *

Okay, let's imagine your country has a referendum to build a physics lab to carry out a specific experiment in your capital. A year later, the physicists realise if they run this experiment, there's an 85% chance it will end in a catastrophic explosion destroying everything within 5 miles. Are you seriously arguing that the physics lab must be built and the experiment must be conducted because you had a referendum on it and it can't be reversed?

.
I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

Funny that, because in Britain general elections can end up being called because of lack of faith in or support for the government. Britain literally had an unscheduled general election during Brexit. The will of the people can change and if he majority no longer supports a decision it had previously made refusing to let then vote on it is anti-democratic.

 

[generals3]

I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote... It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

I don't think it's comparable with electing people. Electing people involves agreeing to let someone else trying to implement his agenda, which is rather "vague". In the case of a referendum it's actually binary: do A or do not do A. But in certain situations, like Brexit, doing or not doing it is not a binary choice. The current mess has shown that. So it would be quite normal and democratic to present defined choices to the people. It wouldn't be Brexit versus no Brexit but rather "This Brexit" or "That Brexit" vs no brexit.

Let's just think about it for a minute:
48% didn't want to leave the EU.
52% wanted to leave the EU but nobody knows how many prefer staying to a hard brexit.
All you need is that more than 2% who voted for brexit (expecting a soft brexit) prefer to remain than a hard brexit for it to be "undemocratic" to just go with a hard brexit instead of revoting based on the possibilities.

And if we'd actually compare it to elections than brexit should be cancelled. Just take the US as an example. When Trump doesn't get a majority in congress/the senate to support his agenda it's simply not done. Just like how obama hasn't provided everything he promised due to a lack of support. In this case: people voted brexit, parliament isn't able to agree on how to do it, no brexit happens.

 

[Silvanus]

That is the democratic process - you can't refuse to accept it and ask for a second vote just because you lost! It is literally undemocratic to disregard a previous vote, and make a second vote! I suppose the people that don't like the fact Britain is leaving the EU would bombard regular voters in order to convince them to vote to stay - perhaps they think they could make a better job next time? Have a re-do vote? Throw a little temper-tantrum because they didn't get it their way?

Firstly, recall that the Leave campaign was found to have broken electoral law multiple times, including drastically breaching spending limits and illegally coordinating with unofficial campaigns. To accept as binding a referendum in which electoral law was routinely flouted by one side is far from respecting the Democratic process.

Secondly, nobody is arguing that we simply ask the same question again. We know what the options are now; we didn't before. We have an enormous amount of information that was not available before.

Thirdly, the Leave campaign literally ran on the basis of the UK getting a deal. To leave without a deal directly goes against even the promises of the Leave campaign, so nobody can argue with a straight face that leaving without a deal respects the Democratic will as expressed in the referendum.

 

[Agema]

I don't see it this way. I can compare it to elections. If after a general elections in the UK there's a group of people protesting, asking for a second round of elections because their preferred party didn't get the majority. It's akin to people protesting an elections in the US because their candidate didn't win and demanding a re-vote...

Okay. But we have an institutionalised constitutional system of regular elections; you vote in a party for up to five years. But there's no institutionalised system for referenda. And to be fair, sufficiently vigorous public opposition to a government will bring it down anyway.

Never mind that, but we don't even need a referendum to reverse the previous. Parliament is supreme; unless explicitly stated otherwise by Parliament, a referendum result is advisory upon Parliament.

It's undemocratic, literally ignoring the rules of the game they agreed to before the election - or referendum, just because they didn't get it their way.

What rules of the game we agreed? The British public didn't agree to the rules of the referendum. The rules were imposed on us by David Cameron and his coterie, and an incredibly shitty job they made of it.

If I'd had my way, I'd have instituted an official independent expert commission to look at the options and run an extensive public consulation (minimum one year, preferably nearer two), and established from the commission & consultation a clear Brexit position representing public will to go against the Remain in a head to head.

 

[TheIronRuler]

The new referendum vote would be split so that the 'remain' clause will gain the highest percentage of votes. Again - the British political class agreed to this and it passed. It had years to turn around and change it, yet it didn't. Voting socialist wouldn't have changed that. Enlightening people by scaring them about the future isn't going to change that. It's not different from delusional people in the US chanting "Not my President". Democracy means you as a political movement can lose the vote sometimes. Accepting a loss is as important as accepting a political victory in preserving the integrity of the political system. Moving forward as a nation is more important for the survival of the UK, instead of squabbling over an issue that was already decided the morning after the vote. A second referendum would have revealed those in favor of it to utterly disregard the democratic process and the wishes of the people. Pinning the reasoning for yet another referendum on the time it took to scare more British people with the facts (the harsh realities of a 'hard' Brexit) of what a Brexit would actually achieve doesn't change that. There was a time to decide it - and it was two years ago. Live with the consequences.

My country believed it could move into a new peaceful existence with its neighbors and retreat from the territories it seized during defensive wars against its aggressive neighbors. In the end we brought terrorist gangs to our heartlands, supplied them with money, guns and legitimacy in a vain hope they could govern themselves and watched as our citizens blew up to mists of blood in buses and restaurants. The decision was already made, there was nothing we could do to change it. We had to adapt based on it, and learn to live with the consequences. This monumentally historical decision (in my country) was made by a minority government, with great public dissent and backlash - yet it remained in place. Because we understand democracy, and that sometimes our side loses, and we have to deal with the consequences of the other side's actions. I can explain to people what had happened and how - and I don't whine about it. I understand its significance and move on.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

The new referendum vote would be split so that the 'remain' clause will gain the highest percentage of votes. Again - the British political class agreed to this and it passed. It had years to turn around and change it, yet it didn't. Voting socialist wouldn't have changed that. Enlightening people by scaring them about the future isn't going to change that. It's not different from delusional people in the US chanting "Not my President". Democracy means you as a political movement can lose the vote sometimes. Accepting a loss is as important as accepting a political victory in preserving the integrity of the political system. Moving forward as a nation is more important for the survival of the UK, instead of squabbling over an issue that was already decided the morning after the vote. A second referendum would have revealed those in favor of it to utterly disregard the democratic process and the wishes of the people. Pinning the reasoning for yet another referendum on the time it took to scare more British people with the facts (the harsh realities of a 'hard' Brexit) of what a Brexit would actually achieve doesn't change that. There was a time to decide it - and it was two years ago. Live with the consequences.

My country believed it could move into a new peaceful existence with its neighbors and retreat from the territories it seized during defensive wars against its aggressive neighbors. In the end we brought terrorist gangs to our heartlands, supplied them with money, guns and legitimacy in a vain hope they could govern themselves and watched as our citizens blew up to mists of blood in buses and restaurants. The decision was already made, there was nothing we could do to change it. We had to adapt based on it, and learn to live with the consequences. This monumentally historical decision (in my country) was made by a minority government, with great public dissent and backlash - yet it remained in place. Because we understand democracy, and that sometimes our side loses, and we have to deal with the consequences of the other side's actions. I can explain to people what had happened and how - and I don't whine about it. I understand its significance and move on.

This is not the same as those saying " not my president" this is a decision that will long outlive the people who voted for it, and not so easily reversed.This is a decision that not only destroys the lives of many living in the UK, but also the UK itself. Voting for a president still means they have to pass laws that will affect the people through congress, not immediately destroy the lives of millions of people, there is a huge difference here. It is not just a matter of a country changing contracts, the entire financial sector will collapse because it will move to an EU nation, because you cannot be the financial hub for the EU and not be in the EU. Millions of jobs in London will cease to exist. The people voting to leave the EU at the time had no idea it would also mean the UK would cease to exist.

Scotland will likely leave and rejoin the EU themselves. Scotland did not vote to leave the EU, they voted to remain. Forcing them to do so against their will, will also likely force them to leave the UK in order to do so.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47170711
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/brexit-chaos-means-scots-are-ready-to-leave-the-uk-1-4858417

Keeping bad decisions that the majority of the people disagree with before it is even implemented in a nation is not democracy, it is idiocy. Why would people do stupid things for the sake of doing stupid things? It makes no sense. Sure this is extremely beneficial to the new nation that becomes the new financial hub for the EU, but will be devastating to so many in the UK. This is a decision that breaks apart their nation, their people and their future and there is no point in doing it when the people do not even want it to happen in the first place.

Then of course you have the issue of WHO and WHY they actually voted to leave the EU:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/567922/distribution-of-eu-referendum-votes-by-age-and-gender-uk/

What people voted for and what they are receiving are two entirely different things. If they were actually receiving what they were told they were receiving , that would be them actually getting what they voted for. That is not happening, because the people were lied to. The people who voted to leave due to the scam they were sold are who want another referendum, not just those who opposed it in the first place. The leave campaign literally told a bunch of elderly people they would receive better healthcare if they voted to leave, which was a scam, a lie, they would have their healthcare cut, not improved is the reality and they found this out the day after the vote.

In addition,the people who decided to leave are not the one's who will be paying the consequences of this decision. Look at the ages of those who voted to remain and those who voted to leave. The elderly voted to leave, the youth voted to remain. Why are the youth being made to pay the price for their elders misjudgment? It appears the elderly fell for the scam that was sold to them and the youth are the ones who will suffer through someone else's decision long after they are gone. Hell many of the elderly are not even living or planning on living in the UK, they are spending their retirement elsewhere.

According to what we know about the aging brain, the reason why elderly are more likely to fall for scams is they are less likely to detect fraud:
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/aging-brains-become-less-able-to-detect-fraud.html

What was sold to the people was a FRAUD. They were lied to. The leave campaign literately put lies on the sides of buses and drove them everywhere:

Many Brexiteers suggested the inflammatory figure should be funding the NHS instead, though Nigel Farage famously backtracked on that pledge on the same day the EU referendum result was announced. He claimed it was ?a mistake?.

https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/heres-how-spectacularly-wrong-the-brexit-bus-350million-lie-was-6600987/
https://www.indy100.com/article/jim-ratcliffe-brexit-leaving-the-uk-monaco-tax-haven-save-8783211


The biggest "fear mongering" as far as the Brexit goes is actually coming from some of who supported leave, UK Farmers and the food industry, many of which have changed their minds now that they understand what is happening:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jan/04/no-deal-brexit-would-be-catastrophic-uk-farmers-warns-nfu
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/comment/brexit-retailers-grocers-warning-food-shortages-empty-shelves-perishable-goods-fresh-food-tesco-a8750991.html
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/20/what-are-brexit-contingency-plans-for-retailers-and-farmers

The stress of this is causing a rise in suicide among farmers:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/mar/03/brexit-and-bad-weather-puts-uk-farmers-at-risk-of-suicide-say-charities

Then of course you have the scientific and medical research communities that have been devastated by this already, including many of my friends that have been affected by this there:

Two-thirds of European engineers and scientists working in the UK have considered leaving the country because of Brexit, a survey has found. Worries about job security and losing EU funding were cited as the main reasons for thinking of leaving, as well as feeling less welcome in the UK.

https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/more-than-half-of-eu-scientists-are-thinking-of-leaving-brexit-uk-/3009993.article
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/23/hard-brexit-cripple-uk-science-nobel-scientists-may-juncker
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06826-y
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2019-03-21/how-brexit-is-stirring-an-exodus-of-europeans-from-the-uk
When a decision will literally rip your country apart, force millions to lose their jobs or move out of the nation, as many I know already have been forced to do so to keep their research grants, this is not " fear mongering" this is the reality here of the decision being made, yes, they better be damn sure this is what they want to do before going through with it rather than just forcing everyone off the cliff because they were lied to. It would be undemocratic for them to force the majority of the people in a nation to do something they do not wish to do that will destroy so many of their lives. This is a nation breaking apart, as that is what is happening here, not a presidential election and should be treated as such. Electing a president is no where near comparable as saying " lets vote to break up the Untied States", those are entirely different things. Now that people understand that is what they will be facing here, they should be able to make a knowledgeable decision and not one based on lies of improved healthcare that doesn't exist.

 

[Agema]

Democracy means you as a political movement can lose the vote sometimes.

Indeed it does. But nothing about democracy says that once a decision is made it cannot be unmade. All the time, as bread and butter politics, policies are scrapped or reversed and laws are repealed or amended. The concept of re-evaluation and reconsideration is constitutionally built into legislatures: bills are voted forward and sent back through parliamentary chambers as part of basic legislative process. They can be abandoned or voted down after being originally voted through. So why is this suddenly a problem with referenda?

Next, okay, so let's say the UK leaves the EU. Forever? Are Britons never allowed a referendum to rejoin? If they are allowed to, then when? 5 years? 10? "A generation"? What are the rules here to "respect democracy"? The answer is that there aren't any rules: just a load of spurious rationalisations people dream up to support their gut feeling.

The new referendum vote would be split so that the 'remain' clause will gain the highest percentage of votes.

Three options with a transferable vote: 1) Remain, 2) Deal as negotiated by the government, 3) No deal. People pick a first and a second choice option. The first choice votes of everyone are counted. If no option has a majority, then the least popular option is removed and the second choice votes of those who favoured it added to the remaining two. Thus Brexiters can avoid having the Brexit vote split and a good chance of forcing a Brexit of some sort. And if Remain wins, well that's democratic choice.

My country believed it could move into a new peaceful existence with its neighbors and retreat from the territories it seized during defensive wars against its aggressive neighbors. In the end we brought terrorist gangs to our heartlands, supplied them with money, guns and legitimacy in a vain hope they could govern themselves and watched as our citizens blew up to mists of blood in buses and restaurants.

You're really not selling to me the idea of going ahead with bad policy at any cost here.

There might be something admirable about martyr-like stoicism, but frankly everyone's better off not making a bad decision in the first place when it could have been avoided. That's why, as above, normal process of governance has so much review and reconsideration.