So the revoke article 50 petition is now at 5.4mil and according to my casual

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

It's not an idea that stands up to any intelligent scrutiny whatsoever. A vote was had, a conclusion was reached and everyone agreed it would be enacted. Not to enact it or to hold another vote because you didn't like the outcome of the first would simply be a gross and blatant betrayal of the democratic covenant. Everything else is just noise.

They wouldn't allow the possibility of not winning, which is why another vote could only be a stitch-up. They're already saying the only options could be May's deal or Remain (ie Remain vs Remain).

Except:
1. No specific version of leave wasn't specified on the paper.

2. And of all the versions offered by the various leave campaigns, none offered WTO and none looked anything like May's bodge.

3. And the vote was interpretted by May's two unelected advisors in such a way that led to red line the majority don't support, some of which are completely incompatible anyway. There is no way she can leave the CU, avoid a hard border and keep the union.

4. Due to Gove knifing BoJo and Leadsome knifing herself, May didn't have a mandate from the Tory party for her version of Brexit.

5. When she tried to get one from the public, they told her to eff off and she lost her majority.

6. Thus, having no mandate from the referendum, party or general election for any specific form of Brexit, and having lost the two advisors who drew the red lines, she just to bullshît her way through, lying about the backdrops she'd signed up to to her cabinet, party, the HoC and the public. Hence the Chequers resignations.

7. She hasn't even sought, let alone built a consensus in her own cabinet, let alone her party, the Commons or the country as a whole. So we have a deal hated by all. {Had she actually levelled with the public about the compromises required and asked them which way to go, she might not be in this position now.}


8. So the only way of resolving this is to put the question back to the people.

9. In a democracy, people are allowed to change their minds. We had two elections in 1910, 1924 and 1974. 1950-51 and 1964-66, are also shorter periods than since the referendum.

10. "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" The facts have changed so let people vote on remain vs no deal. The Leave promised in 2016 is no longer attainable.

11. Oh, and the VL campaign director said at the time he'd be happy for a confirmatory vote on the deal.

12. Does your reticence have anything to do with the fact that, barring two ties last summer, every single poll since early March last year - more than 12 months - has Remain ahead? So much for the people's will and all that.


Oh, and ftr, while I want a 2nd vote, I don't support the remain vs May's deal option. Most leavers want a no deal Brexit, so that should be on the paper.

In an ideal world, we could just do it with AV, but I worry about the idiots not understanding how to vote a 2nd pref. So we should do it like the French. 1 normal vote on the choice of 3 options. And if no option reaches 50%, then we have a run off two weeks later.

That way, May's deal goes in the first round, and then we can actually argue for 2 weeks if we want remain or no deal.

If that's what Parl wants then it is democratic, by the very definition of how our parliamentary democracy works.

[Ash]

Except:
1. No specific version of leave wasn't specified on the paper.

ISTR the leaflet sent to every household said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ jurisdiction. It then said that the government "will implement your decision". That's quite specific.

[Ganpati's Goonerz--AFC's Aboriginal Fertility Cult]

ISTR the leaflet sent to every household said that leaving the EU meant leaving the single market, customs union and ECJ jurisdiction. It then said that the government "will implement your decision". That's quite specific.

But the leave campaigns didn't. Absolutely no-one was suggesting no deal at the time. Indeed the remain side were often having to argue against Norway.

No-one said WTO. No-one said May's deal which traps us in a limbo we can't leave and risks breaking the union.

However you want to phrase it, no-one campaign offered anything looking like either of those two options. As Matt Chorley said in the Times the other day, any ERGer proposing no deal in 2016 would have been let anywhere near a microphone.

No-one said anything about a hard border or breaking the union, either. But we can't leave the CU without doing one of those.

Let's vote again now we actually have a much better understanding of the facts.

[Ash]

But the leave campaigns didn't. Absolutely no-one was suggesting no deal at the time. Indeed the remain side were often having to argue against Norway.

No-one said WTO. No-one said May's deal which traps us in a limbo we can't leave and risks breaking the union.

However you want to phrase it, no-one campaign offered anything looking like either of those two options. As Matt Chorley said in the Times the other day, any ERGer proposing no deal in 2016 would have been let anywhere near a microphone.

No-one said anything about a hard border or breaking the union, either. But we can't leave the CU without doing one of those.

Let's vote again now we actually have a much better understanding of the facts.

Nice avoidance of my point, and top obfuscation to say "yeah but no-one knew we'd get to this scenario". Two years after an election, things may look different to what was talked about then, but no-one says "hey, let's go back and do the election again now we know what happens".

Remain promised that the sky would fall on our head as soon a Leave vote happened, but apart from a currency adjustment which works both ways (London's tourism has boomed), here we are with recent employment figures as high as ever. My boss bemoans the higher wages and the lower property prices and I say to him "are higher standards of living for lower income workers really such a terrible thing?"

[Herbert Augustus Chapman]

and I say to him "are higher standards of living for lower income workers really such a terrible thing?"

And I expect he says "well yes it is, because they are thick cancer deserving ****s whom I am innately superior to" - at least that's what he thinks a.

[Chief Arrowhead]

And I expect he says "well yes it is, because they are thick cancer deserving ****s whom I am innately superior to" - at least that's what he thinks a.

You forgot to include, "who support Millwall", imo.