Whoa! 'Theresa May to call Arlene Foster later today to pitch border deal'?

[World's End Stella]

An absurd argument. People vote in general elections for a variety of factors. People didn't want a UKIP government because UKIP is a madhouse and would have screwed up the running of the country. Not voting for UKIP does not invalidate an individual's anti-EU feeling. There was a democratic deficit on the question that the blunt object of a referendum was the only way to meet.

And as for this



This is an argument for technocracy, not democracy. That is precisely what the Leave vote rejected. Your 'intelligent people' simply means 'people who will agree with me and whose decisions will suit my interests'. That is not democracy.

Putting away the windup - you don't think that this:

'Decisions as important as Brexit should be taken by intelligent people on the back of extensive quantitative analysis and consideration of public opinion.'

almost perfectly describes our 'democracy'? We don't currently elect people (Corbyn aside most of them are rather intelligent) to not only take decisions for us, but to ensure that the process used to take those decisions involves as much rational, objective, quantitative analysis as possible? I think that's exactly what MPs do all the time, and it's what the public expects.

And the only way that Brexit was going to happen was to circumvent that process, in this case via a referendum. And surely there is an argument to be made that since our democracy works this way now, a decision as important as Brexit is precisely the sort of decision which should be taken this way and not one that should be exposed to a one off vote and all the flaws associated with that approach.

And I could turn your argument about criticism of the referendum really meaning that we don't like a process that results in an outcome we disagree with around. Are you really that happy to govern by referenda, or are you just happy that this one went your way?

[Peter]

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.

I shall try again- are there any circumstances under which you would accept a second referendum?

Or is that terribly slender result the be all and end all of the will of the people, on this issue, for evermore?

How about this? THe DUP pull out, Corbyn forces through a vote of no confidence, and at an election early next year Labour stand offering a second referendum and end as the largest party but without a majority. Are those grounds for a second referendum? Would you accept that?

[Peter]

A vote - any vote - is a snapshot of opinion at a certain time and place. We accept that when it is a general election and accept that we'll only have to have another go in a few years' time. We don't look at an opinion poll six months later and decide it's time to go again because some people's minds have changed according to a highly flawed polling system. The precedent for referenda in this country is that our votes are binding and that we will have to wait a long while before we get a chance to change them. That was the case in terms of devolution and Common Market entry and should rightfully be the same on Brexit.

Also, your premise is flawed. I wasn't 'sold' any particular exit from the EU and neither was anyone else. I remember nothing on that ballot that mentioned the details or told us how it was or wasn't going to happen. I and 17.4 million other people voted to leave the EU - that's it. Nothing has been 'thoroughly repudiated' because it hasn't actually happened yet.

Devolution is a terrible example, by the way. Firstly the original referenda were gerrymandered by insisting that 50% of the electorate vote in favour. Secondly, the only reason is took 18 years for a further vote was that it took that long for Labour to get back in. They held the referendum immediately.

If you want precedent we should have insisted on more than a simple majority for a no vote. Presumably, for the sake of respecting precedent, you would have been happy with this?

[TheCurly]

Devolution is a terrible example, by the way. Firstly the original referenda were gerrymandered by insisting that 50% of the electorate vote in favour. Secondly, the only reason is took 18 years for a further vote was that it took that long for Labour to get back in. They held the referendum immediately.

If you want precedent we should have insisted on more than a simple majority for a no vote. Presumably, for the sake of respecting precedent, you would have been happy with this?

As far as I can see May has 2 very simple choices.
1.A hard border or
2.United Ireland.
It will be a hard border and it always was from day one.As far as I can see all this posturing is just to appease the wolly faces imo.
I'll give it about 4 weeks before some poor ******* border cop is shooted dead.

[Peter]

As far as I can see May has 2 very simple choices.
1.A hard border or
2.United Ireland.
It will be a hard border and it always was from day one.As far as I can see all this posturing is just to appease the wolly faces imo.
I'll give it about 4 weeks before some poor ******* border cop is shooted dead.

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

[TheCurly]

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

Democracy is load of old *******s p

[Peter]

Democracy is load of old *******s p

How dare you say that! Wash your mouth, you communist.

[TheCurly]

How dare you say that! Wash your mouth, you communist.

More an anarchist type to be fair

[Ash]

It really doesnt matter. All that matters here is that we leave the EU, regardless of how many people die, and that the principle of democracy does not perish from this earth.

So if terrorists in NI might start killing people if they don't get their way over the EU, this proves that we must stay in the EU?

[Peter]

So if terrorists in NI might start killing people if they don't get their way over the EU, this proves that we must stay in the EU?

Errr.... what??