You are going to need more people than that, though it would be interesting to see this 'people's vote', they claim to not want to stop Brexit, thus a vote would be on taking the deal or rejecting the deal, leaving in the end regardless.
Considering this whole business was inspired by a political move, and also extremely murky in terms of honesty (remember the 350 million a week and the 40 billion pounds that have to be simply paid to trigger brexit, which is going to cause a temporary financial crisis that could last for years if it goes through, to say nothing of the other lies flung around) I would agree that they need to vote again, simply because this shit will affect the whole of the UK in the long run. Let there be an honest vote this time, with no shitty influences, and let the consequences be seen for what it is then.
I don't disagree, it was a political move, and neither will I disagree that it wasn't murky in terms of honesty, though something of this size and magnitude I wouldn't expect it to be any clearer. These people aren't asking to vote again, they are asking for a vote on the final deal while still maintaining they aren't stopping Brexit, but are simply overlooking the problem that the government determines the deal it offers and if such a vote existed, it would be take the deal or reject the deal, both leaving the EU.
Dude if you think 100,000 angry people marching in the streets makes you go "Eh...doesn't convince me..."
You are deluded.
That is 100,000 people with differing ideas of what a deal should be, or even if there should be a deal at all, vs a government making a deal on behalf of the entire nation.
It is a done deal, these people are asking for a vote on the deal, not a vote on Brexit, unless of course, they are the typical group that wants to overthrow Brexit.
I still hope that the UK politicians have a change of heart and follow the change in public opinion. Going through with brexit the hard way will ruin the UK economically for years to come.,
I'm willing to bet not even 10 000 people would march in support of brexit. Stop trolling.
BBC R4 mentioned on last night's PM that there was also pro-brexit march in London yesterday. It was a few hundred people.
Haven't seen 100.000 people march in protest for Brexit.
Also, overthrow is such a weird word choice, use overcoming or just plain reversing Brexit
Most of nation seems to realize that Brexit isn't in their best economic self-interest,
they will probably reverse it or half-ass it to not bear the full front that is a hard Brexit that would make them worse off for decades to come.
You are welcome to show evidence to the contrary (hah, fat chance) or you can stick to your usual shtick of empire-level Britain somehow being a thing again,
just leave the rest of this thread alone with your pretence of caring for democracy or your make-a-wish economy fewer dreams of trade deals and satellite offices.
If you wanna start to debunk: "here"
You still haven't debunked this one the last time I posted it and left it in hanging in the air.
No that is 100,000 people who all have a single idea about brexit and this is a government that really shouldn't be making decisions on behalf of a nation.
Of course, why march in protest for Brexit?
I've already discussed the economic side countless times, and you should well know by now that I've remained optimistic but still admit a level of harm will come to the UK as with any major economic shift, however time and time again I have asked and have not received an answer, why should we stop Brexit other than 'muh gdp' 'why won't someone think of the gdp!' , I've read your economic arguments and I don't see how it is enough to override the electorate, you will be overriding democracy, I need more than a GDP loss over 8 years.
That is a government's job.
Yes it is but the last time a bunch of wackjob governments that shouldn't have been governing got together it was the death of the monarchy and a murderous world war followed by another.
Is it democracy if the votes were swayed by lies? Is it not more democratic to have another vote, with complete transparency so people actually know what they're voting for?
The day after the referendum, I honestly thought there would be a major shift in public opinion against Brexit as the negotiations dragged on. But I have to point out any time this comes up: the evidence is that there has been a slight shift against Brexit since the referendum, but it's so small that Leave could easily win a second referendum. Turnout would be a big factor, and it would probably be another very close result in whichever direction it fell
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/165/8b0c23d4-dc81-4eb9-8bfe-e67cdb8b20e2/_100346601_right_wrong_chart.png
Aren't there some people in the Parliament that are trying to get another vote going to confirm whether or not we REALLY want this?
I mean after everything and all we've learned, it would make sense to make another vote due to the new circumstances we'll be landing on.
It's perfectly fine and democratic for the people who voted brexit to get a say on the final deal of brexit.
If the people who voted brexit are presented with a deal or situation they dislike and they ask that an alternative be found whats wrong with that?
It might not deliver the result Boilrig wants and is therefore undemocratic, obviously.
Well actually, I'm all for this vote, because the UK leaves regardless.
But what if the British people collectively decide that the deal presented is not in their interests at all and would rather remain than get a bad/no deal.
As I said above, a vote on the deal, not on remaining, that isn't going to change.
Why not? What if the only deals or lack in thereof we get from brexit are the ones that the British people don't want.
this is one of only a few questions the government haven't answered
sorry did I say "a few?" i meant loads.
wait did I say "loads"? i meant any.
this government doesn't have a clue, and has never had a clue
https://youtu.be/2Gybrn6XLh0
So it doesn't really matter how the citizens of the UK are affected, it just feels good to know they aren't part of the EU any more?
I always thought things this major put to a popular vote should have to reach something higher like 60% support. That would give me solid confidence in the vote rather than a close almost 50/50 win.
They are asking for what MPs gained the other week, a 'meaningful' vote, not actually a decision on whether to do Brexit or not, the government won't actually allow any vote of that kind to happen as it severely weakens negotiations.
No shit, however it is No. 10, not the government, and because No. 10 thought it couldn't lose, Cameron never planned.
I think we are past these doomsday prophesies wouldn't you say.
You know where you can stick your opinions of our country, Boilrig, so why don't you busy yourself with working them up there, rather than arguing about this "d-done d-deal, f-f-fools!!!" you so pathetically scream about, as if you somehow won some personal contest.
Fuck, your country isn't even the EU.
Haven't you yourself admitted that the best case scenario for Brexit is a temporary economic downturn followed by a resurgence as new trade relationships are formed at some indeterminate amount of time? Is "citizens of the UK will be affected" really a controversial doomsday prophesy?
Good job by the way completely dodging my question, not that I'd expect any honesty from you anyway.
Imagine victory-lapping the referendum result on the internet, from thousands of miles away, for two years when you would still have bugger-all to show for it even if you lived in the country that it affects (and you don't). I don't think I could look in the fucking mirror after that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
