We already voted to leave so if we have another referendum, we should just have the question of how do you want to leave.
Mays deal (not really leaving)
No deal (managed withdrawal on WTO terms).
Simples.
It's extraordinary that most Leavers seem to believe all Remainers are happy with the EU.
The EU is far from perfect, but I still think we're better off in than out. We're (but maybe not now) a major member, let's change it from within.
Just walking away in an utter shambles like this serves no-one. It's just folly. Crazy tribal nonsense to just say sod it, we'll worry about it afterward.
Either way our reputation is in tatters. That's gonna need time to repair. Nothing can change that now.
So how about a third referendum in 2022?
And a fourth in 2025?
That also acknowledges that people may have changed their minds.
So why are you ignoring that possibility?
For the last three years Parliamentary effort has gone in to making Brexit so painful that the electorate will accept it's too difficult. We went through a huge campaign of lies and deceit to try and persuade us to vote Remain. It didn't work and the majority still voted Leave.
Since then we have had an orchestrated and carefully planned campaign to make us change our mind. It has been orchestrated by our own parliament and the EU.
So what your second vote actually means is that Parliament has wilfully made it as painful as possible for us to leave. The intended purpose was to make us accept a partial Brexit or no Brexit at all. A second referendum is intended to do what the Remain campaign could not do and get us all to vote the correct way.
If the day after a general election the losing side says they don't accept the result and want another one, it doesn't get called "more democracy" it's called what it is - bad losers wanting a second bite of the cherry.
The telling fact of it not being "more" democracy is that there is only one group pushing for it, whereas generally speaking in most ballots, of any type, all sides are in favour of having a vote.
Why should those desiring Brexit need to win two referendums to achieve the result, whereas those desiring to remain only need to win one?
Show me a post from the last three years on here where someone who has voted Remain hasn't rushed to defend the EU on anything.
I'd expect at least some time during criticism of the EU and the reasons why people voted to leave, someone to say, "yeah, fair one."
Sonic, you are rewriting history.You are so far entrenched you cannot see this is an utter disaster and always would be.
Just because Osborne came out with wrong and overinflated disaster scenarios for voting leave doesn't discredit the huge amount of economic evidence that actually leaving with no deal will be very damaging. His statements were also politically motivated, that is very important when considering it.
You too. You are not accepting this is a disaster as it was sabotaged by those who don't accept that the vote was to leave. Something parliament did originally agree on.
The huge amount of economic evidence also predicted voting to leave would be a disaster. Want links to it all?
No I am not, I have said previously I was 50/50 but decided on remain. My wife voted leave as she wasn't sure but as I said I would vote remain we cancelled each other out. That is how divided we were. Now, not so. The leave lies have been completely exposed.
However, two wrongs don't make a right so this pathetic tit for tat complaining about who did wrong is getting nowhere and no amount of links will make a difference.
We all agree there were lies on both sides, in fact massive whoppers but there was no way for anyone to dispute this or bring them to account as we were in uncharted waters.
Your post? Both.
Parliament having voted to leave and on March 29th, still hasn't managed to agree on anything.
Not a soft brexit, a hard brexit, a red white and blue brexit, any brexit.
Which does mean almost half the time you should be agreeing on the faults with the EU. I can't say I have noticed.
2/10. Poor research.