Theresa May warns there could be no Brexit at all because of obstruction - Polidicks

I changed my mind over voting for Labour, lets have a new election! And no it is not more democratic just because people express an opinion of what is going to happen to convince you to vote for them and which by the way have not been proven as lies. Only until after Brexit will you know for sure. Сука Блять

Care to get Trump to translate that for us, mate?

I can agree with you on that [and Supreme Commander], not sure about Planetary Annihilation but there is a free TA like on Steam called https://store.steampowered.com/app/334920/ZeroK/ Care to get Trump to translate that for us, mate? Google translate is your friend?

I’ve played enough DOTA to already know what it says.

Why is some russian shill acting like he actually gives a fuck about the UK's right to independence action under well informed conditions? Can you actually tell me when a democracy is allowed to "Undo" a decision?

They gave you a chance with an election among other chances with MPs. With referendums, they get revisited but usually after 20-30 years 'next generation' type deal or sometimes never.

That is an absurd metric that I’m glad I’ve quoted so I can demonstrate poor understandings of democracy going forward.

Maybe you should demonstrate with that post.

You're asserting "This is how democracies work". The culmination of your argument is "This is how democracies work". I'd ask you for more proof, evidence, logic, or reasoning as to why specifically that's how democracies work, and why any nation breaking that and not just going outside of the "Usual" is undemocratic. The burden of proof is on you, because you asserting "this is how it works". Follow that up, or don't. I don't really care. The limit of my requirement as your "Interlocutor" in a debate upon the first questioning of your points is not for me to clarify your argument, it's for YOU to clarify YOUR argument. Prove to me that's how a democracy works, that if a referendum is reversed before the "usual 20-30 years" it's no longer a democracy. Really, every single thing you stated was a hollow assertion in desperate need of support. Get to it chappie.

My question since after the Brexit vote has always been why do people think it is acceptable to do another referendum and continue to vote until they get the answer they want. I answered the democracy question many threads ago in a referendia discussion, evidence and all and why it would be useless to either throw referendia under the bus or continue to use it over and over. So look mate, I asked for a demonstration of 'poor understandings of democracy' and I'm still waiting. Get to it chappie.

Quick lads, obstruct as hard as you fucking well can.

Why should it be unacceptable to want another referendum when it was proven that the prior one was effectively compromised by extra-national interests and which convinced the vast majority of those who voted for it through out-and-out lies and fabricated data?

The idea of never having a second vote for anything is kinda ridiculous and stubborn and isn't too productive. If the information given during the campaigns was false (tick), the vote was rushed (tick), the consequences of the vote are deep and far reaching (tick) and if once a decision has been reached, the decision turns out to be a really fucking awkward decision to execute (tick). I think these are fairly reasonable reasons to have a revote to make sure everyone is cool with proceeding with the decision that was voted for. Any scientific method is tested multiple times and peer reviewed, then thrown out or accepted, I'm not sure it's too different in this case. If the people are clear on what they want, then the vote will turn out the same again (provided there is no corruption and manipulation on round 2). I don't see what a democratic country is worried about having a revote for anything, just to be sure the majority are cool with whats going down.

As I've said before, it is up to the Electoral Commission to step in and say the vote in invalid.

Alright, sure, but that's not what you were asking for here. You were asking why it should be allowed at all because you suspect it'll just get abused.

This isn't the case of going to the shop and asking for a random candy bar, then getting upset that it's not the bar that you secretly wanted. This is a case of the shopkeeper telling millions of people that the candy bar is covered in solid gold and sings at your when you put it in your mouth, only to be shown a human turd wrapped in tin foil upon final presentation. This analogy is for the voters themselves, many have changed their minds since the vote went through and the lies have shown themselves. But yes you are right, we need the government to say the vote is invalid, or we simply aren't going through with it, for anything to change. Meanwhile everyone can "simply call for a rerun due to it not being the result they wanted" all they damn well please because this is a democracy and annoying things like second counts, invalidation and internet arguments are all part of a good and wholesome democracy.

So her saying this, what are the chances of this actually happening and everyone in the UK sighing in relief?

Hard to say, but probably pretty low.

A Lyin' bar, if you will. ;)

I gave you an answer to that before but you don't care.

You've recieved tens of answers. You just rate them "Dumb", or "Baby" and go away after words. You don't argue. You don't discuss this. You just assert "THIS IS THE CASE" when it's plain as day to literally everyone else that no, that isn't it. You've always stated that we only want the brexit vote overturned because it didn't go our way. You have been repeatedly told to stop saying that because it is not true. When pressed on this issue, we prove to you that the leave campaign lied, repeatedly, again and again through out the process of informing the voters, or should we call it accurately as "Misinformed the voter"? You'll say, as you always fall back to "There's no such thing as a perfectly informed populous!" but no one ever stated we needed that either. Do you see the common theme here Boilrig? Do you see it? If you haven't noticed yet boilrig, the theme is that you will say something, it will be rebuked because it isn't self supported, then you move on to the next excuse. Which is rebuked, and then you move on to the next. And the next, and the next. But at no point do you confront the augment, deal with the facts, or admit you made wholly uninformed statements previously. No democracy is bound to a referendum for 20-30 years. You've made this a sticking point, and you've said a specific time frame. How about you do what I asked, and you prove that democracies must adhere to a 20-30 year rule around referendums? You can't, no such rule exists in any democracy.

Maybe I am misunderstanding you, but Resonant seems in agreement with us here, so not sure what you mean.

Yes. He is. And boilrig won't deal with the strong arguments Resonant presented. He'll post snarky shit, and leave.

Ah, I gotcha! I thought you were replying to Resonant.

That's at least partly my fault, could have worded that better.

I was confused too. Mainly because quoting someone, saying some snarky shit and then leaving is exactly something I would do!

No deal then i guess?

The tories got elected on amongst other things the promise that they would honour the referendum and consider it binding, with a sizeable margin. The fact that the Tories are bleeding members to Ukip and other parties since this announcement should make it clear to anyone that people actually expected them to do it. Im a bit on the fence about the subject really. at one end it was democratically determined people want this, at the other side none of the ruling parties want to do it so its doubtful they will go through with it other then just halfassed.