Thought I'd start a new thread as this is going to be a major talking point this year...have not made up my mind yet...(unlike bucksfizz)....but thinking of voting for an exit as Europe is not doing Britain any good at all it seems....

i certainly did; fred 99% certainly did not; stan didn't understand what he was meant to do

The referendum held on 23 June 2016, was based on dishonesty, falsehood and poorly defined and was responded to by a deliberately misinformed public, who often were voting against rather than for a specific goal. The goals they thought there were voting for were often ethereal and can be seen as a vote against the establishment.

Not realising they may be replacing one establishment with another.

-=-=-=-=

I would like to see another referendum based on:


The proposal on the ballot paper defines the policy, or legislation properly and the foreseeable economic and political effects and consequences are exposed and explained honestly and correctly. Also, the referendum relates specifically to and applies to the probable and developing policies, related new regulations, treaties relating those to the effects of those on the present economic and political stability.

In other words, no leap with false hope and little faith into the unknown.

if/as you didn't vote first time around, but clearly did not like the result, would you vote should there (heaven forbid) be a 2nd referendum?

fwiw, the public will still be no better informed, but rather they will all be totally confused by the various claims and counter claims where one side is adamant that black is white, while the other swears that white is black

imo, should there be another referendum, i would be surprised if the margin was much different fro 4% in favour of one side or the other
then what?#
and while the politicians continue to squabble about that for another 2/3 years, what in the meantime?

I agree with you, Cyners, a second referendum risks dividing the Great British public further, and the collateral damage could be irrepairable.

It would be so much easier all round if Parliament were to use the powers vested upon them under the Grieve amendment to order Maggie Dismay to just revoke Article 50 completely. After all, and as she told Dilbert in person yesterday, only the Government can revoke Article 50.

:o)

does that not then void the referendum, or am i being even more stupid than usual?
that said, i am now totally bored with the incessant gibbering on brexit by all media

Oh, you're undoubtedly being even more stupid than usual! You really had to ask that question???

if i knew the answer, i wouldn't have asked, and yes i am far too lazy to research it myself when clearly you know the answer :-)

Haven't got a Scooby, but I wasn't ever gonna pass up an opportunity to call you stupid.

Ask Fred or Stan.

:o)

chuckle chuckle chuckle
i've no problem with being called stupid, but much amused that you haven't a clue either

Manuel,

You are repeating the same points as previously posted.

Are you dribbling as well?

-=-=

CNG,

Disagree with your first point, I doubt that society, after a few months, would be fractured anymore than it is now.

Many of Brexiters appear to be similar to football hooligans mobs in the 70s and 80s. A little patience will deal with the remnants of them.

As you posted I, also, would prefer Parliament to reject T. May's "Brexit proposals or deals". But, also for her or parliament to then call for a G/E.

Proposals for "repeal" of the present referendum could be included in the future manifestos of all parties and "individual" MPs and their proposals for a future "Brexit" or rejection of Brexit referendum.

I think the present government is in chaos and has doubtful authority to govern Britain or negotiate for Britain in the EU.

How many more times do the outsiders need telling, they really are hard work.

Cyners,

My tartiflette risked burning earlier, so it was easier to be flippant. Soz, but it was fun.

My best guess, however is this.... The original referendum question was 'Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?'. Whilst there was an implication, there wasn't actually any form of instruction or obligation within the question for the Government to act upon the result, which is why Gina Miller found it necessary to take the Government to court (for clarity) which ordered that Parliament give consent first before invoking Article 50.

The original referendum was therefore, at best, nothing more than 'advisory'.

Given that Parliament weren't obliged, but nonetheless, opted to enact the referendum result suggests to me that they have every right to withdraw Article 50 without further obligation to refer to the people.

Donc, the orginal referendum wouldn't be void per se, but it would still be meaningless.

Fred,

A little patience will deal with the remnants of them.

I would've thought that many of them are dead already. It's all that red meat, doncha know.

:o)

Hils it was Andrew Marr who said to TM that only the government could extend article 50 and she agreed. That's him and all his researchers talking crap too then.

Noise levels on here are going up and up but if you listen carefully you can still hear it ...














tic toc , tic toc , tic toc ...

Channel 4 9pm Brexit : The Uncivil War

Dilbert,

I'm not sure if you're missing the point, or if you're running scared that Brexit was never anything more than a pipe dream.

Regardless, and for the sake of clarity, yes it's only the Government who can revoke Article 50. Under the Grieve amendment, however, in the event that the Government is defeated in their attempt to pass the Withdrawal Act (sorry, Agreement as pointed out by Hawkeye below!) next week, the Government then have 21 days to offer up n alternative Plan B. In the event that an attempt to pass Plan B is also defeated, then it is within the power of Parliament to instruct the Government upon what to do next.

Obviously, anything Parliament suggests would also need to be voted upon, and there are a whole load of other ifs and buts. But, essentially, Andrew Marr and/or Theresa May are right insofar as it's only the Government who can revoke Article 50, but she conveniently neglected to say that she may have to take instructions from a higher power (and no, that's not Moggy or BoJo!).

And as another point of order, there is no automatic right to extend Article 50. To do so would require the approval of the other EU 27.

Good to see you admit you were wrong and Mrs May was right :-)

EU have said they will not extend Article 50 just to give the UK more time to sort things out and that there has to be some new proposal to delay it.

Like it or not there is no majority for anything in Parliament regarding Brexit.

I'd prefer a managed clean break with May resigning and someone on the leave side taking over and negotiating ad hoc deals once we are out.

What I currently think will happen is as time runs out that Corby not wanting to be blamed for a no deal Brexit makes a long winded speech on how he could have done it better and then gets Labour to abstain on May's deal and it finally gets voted through sometime in March.

Hilary, is that the same EU Withdrawal Act that passed both houses in 2018 and received Royal Assent in June 2018 and is now an Act of Parliament?

The story continues to evolve. I enjoyed that.
What will we do if the dust ever settles?