Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz66]

So your claim is that in a country of ~65M people, the views of one man (who looks a little senile to be honest) are representative of 17M+ people that voted Leave then...?

No that is not my claim at all. My point is, it is easy to come out with trite claims like "Remainers always try and conflate Europe and the EU whereas Leavers very rarely confuse the two." but just saying such things does not make them true. I voted remain and do not conflate Europe with the EU. The man in the video clip I think it is safe to assume voted leave and clearly does conflate Europe and the EU. How much evidence of the triteness of your claim is needed before you accept that it is actually just prejudice nonsense rather than reality ?

My friend, how many options were on the voting form for the referendum...?

2. Neither of which was the option that you now claim has democratic majority support.

Did the government promise to uphold the decision of the people? Yes.

They did but such a promise only means anything if they can command a majority in parliament. A government promising something they subsequently prove incapable of delivering. How unusual !

Have they done so? No.

I think they (government) tried (badly) to implement the result but ultimately have been thwarted time and again in such efforts by the extreme leave section of parliament. Those that having won a result they never expected to win then decided that leaving was not enough. That decided that not only must we leave , we must leave in such a way that even should we change our minds down the line there will be no way back anyway for generations to come.

The great and the good offered the British Public a binary choice and they chose 'Leave'.

And but for the likes of the ERG we would today no longer be members of the EU.

It really is as simple as that. And you may continue to argue that it wasn't the case but it is there in black and white.

I will indeed continue to argue that the referendum result was not a clear definitive majority mandate to leave the EU without a deal for no other reason that that is just true. I will continue to argue that the only way anyone can claim that leaving without a deal is the majority will of the UK population is to ask them for no other reason that that is just true. I will continue to argue that those who claim it is a clear and definitive majority mandate for leaving without a deal are not respecters of democracy but actually contemptuous of it because that is clearly so to me.

[cyprusgrump]

2. Neither of which was the option that you now claim has democratic majority support.

17.4M voters put their cross next to one of the two choices offered. Leave the European Union.

You may not like the result, you may twist and turn you may make up fallacies, you may find a video of a senile old bloke on the Interwebz but at the end of the day that really is how democracy works. And must work.

[Maximus]

Sorry but democracy doesn’t work that way.

Can’t just keep cancelling the democratic process because you don’t like the outcome.

This makes a mockery of all institutions and Britain would have capitulated to foreign interests.

If the people voted for something that proves to be impossible to implement (a painless cake and eat it exit from the eu), then the only sensible option in light of that is for them to vote again on those options that are possible (a painful exit or no exit).

I agree with Erolz and this is what the second referrendum would be for.

Choose your medicine now you know what kind of deal is on the table or change your mind.

That is how democracy works.

Because, you have a group of leavers that might prefer to leave with a deal, without a deal and some might have actually changed their mind.

What is there to be afraid of by doing a second referendum to bring this saga to closure.

From my understanding, the last three years have been categorized by negotiation that has been deadlocked about how to leave. Why do you want this to continue to dominate British politics?

[Kikapu]

The parliament had already voted that there cannot be a “no deal” Brexit.
Now what for the leavers?

[erolz66]

2. Neither of which was the option that you now claim has democratic majority support.

17.4M voters put their cross next to one of the two choices offered. Leave the European Union.

You may not like the result, you may twist and turn you may make up fallacies, you may find a video of a senile old bloke on the Interwebz but at the end of the day that really is how democracy works. And must work.

If not for the likes of the extreme leavers then we would have left already. A truth you refuse to accept. If there is not a majority in favour of leaving the EU without a deal and we leave without a deal anyway - that is NOT democracy. That will represent the subversion of democracy.

We vote for 'cheesecake'. I did not vote for cheesecake but accepting the result of the vote I propose a baked cheesecake and go out and negotiate a deal for a baked cheesecake. You, as someone who did vote for cheesecake, reject that and claim that baked cheesecake is not real cheesecake and is cheesecake in name only and block any and all attempts to respect the will of the vote, that was just for cheesecake, unless it is the type of cheesecake you want, lets say a set cheesecake not a baked one. When such blocking by you results in deadlock and no cheesecake of any type you then blame those who did not vote for cheesecake in the first place for trying to block the will of the vote. You claim there was never a spectrum of different cheesecakes because the vote only had one binary choice of 'cheesecake' and not types of cheesecake even though before voting for cheesecake you made much of the many types of cheesecake we might chose should we vote for it. When it is suggested that we vote again on the type of cheesecake, given that we can not agree on a set or baked one, you reject that and claim that we already voted for the kind of cheesecake you want, even though that is not what was voted for. You continue to insist it has to be a set cheesecake and not a baked one. You claim that the vote for cheesecake was in fact a vote for set cheesecake only and block all attempts to find a compromise as to the type of cheesecake we get other than your personal choice of cheesecake. You claim your determination to end up with set cheesecake and only set cheesecake and nothing else is demanded by 'democracy' whilst refusing to have a vote on if set cheesecake is actually what the majority want or not. You are not a democrat. You are someone determined to get set cheesecake and nothing else regardless of it that is a majority desire or no.

[Londonrake]

The parliament had already voted that there cannot be a “no deal” Brexit.
Now what for the leavers?

In that respect it doesn't really matter what parliament voted for.

When they voted (by an overwhelming majority) to invoke Article 50, primary legislation was created which led to a default legal position of leaving the EU. Leaving with no deal if one cannot be agreed is the default. Might as well vote Canute-like to hold back the sea.

[Jerry]

According to some "democracy" is what some of the dead decided three years ago. The dead have more to say about our future than hundreds of thousands of youngsters who are now eligible to vote, what a bloody nonsense.

The Independent eh? The most inappropriately named 'newspaper' available in the UK!

So you go along with the theory that: -

1) Loads of the people of a certain age that voted Brexit have died. I seem to still be alive BTW.

2) Loads of youngsters that would have voted Remain have achieved voting age.

And yet, nobody would have achieved a certain age and changed their vote from Remain to Brexit?

I think that is stretching things a bit don't you?

As a Sun reader you were bound to say that If you care to read the whole link you will see the answer to 1) and 2)

[Maximus]

The parliament had already voted that there cannot be a “no deal” Brexit.
Now what for the leavers?

Well, things will remain in deadlock but in the meantime, Britain will remain in the eu.

They won’t or can’t leave because they don’t want to swallow the bitter pill. The winners are actually the losers in this saga.

This is enough to do a second referendum.

[Londonrake]

As a Sun reader you were bound to say that If you care to read the whole link you will see the answer to 1) and 2)

For Milti: I read it from the back page forward, whilst smoking a roll-up fag having my morning dump.

Just enhancing (deeply entrenched) perceptions here. Allwight Guv?

[erolz66]

I agree with Erolz and this is what the second referrendum would be for.

Just to be clear here I am not proposing a re run of the first referendum, with a binary choice of leave or remain. I am proposing, given the mess we are in and have been in for 3 years now, that we establish if there is or is not a majority will to leave without a deal or not. So a simple binary choice of 'leave the EU without a deal - yes or no'. If it is yes then just do it. If it is no then we have a referendum on 'leave with the deal on offer - yes or no'. If the result is yes then leave with that deal. If the result is no then (and only then) have a referendum on 'remain in the EU - yes or no'. If the result is no, then we accept that we simply want in compatible things and that voting can not break the deadlock and we just toss a coin.

I think the reason why many extreme leavers will not accept such an approach is that they fear that there may well not be majority support for leaving without a deal and thus prefer to risk even no brexit at all for the chance of achieving a no deal exit that may well NOT be what a majority want. They do this whilst claiming to be 'democrats' and whilst calling everyone else 'undemocratic'.