May is said to withdraw parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal

[vogie]

5 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

There was no democratic vote. There was a manipulated referendum. 

 

5 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I don’t think there will be a referendum. May, the Brexit accomplice, will wait until the last minute to force parliament into a choice between a no deal Brexit and her deal Brexit. As prime minister, it would have been her job to declare the manipulated vote that happened two years ago void and restore democracy by making the manipulators face consequence for their actions. Instead, she is acting as an accomplice for the Brexit gangsters and betraying the people who are were lied to. 

 

4 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

A manipulated referendum that should be declared void. 

 

11 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Like I said: A manipulated vote must be declared void and rerun. Accepting a manipulated vote is completely undemocratic; true banana republic style. 

 

8 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Why do you think it bothers me? I am repeating it because the discussion around it is repeating. 

 

Where did I show “only (...) one side of the coin”? My point is that the referendum was manipulated, and that proper democracies do not accept manipulated votes. 

These are the posts that you claim again and again that the vote was rigged, you have been told on many occassion that both sides lied but you chose to ignore it, I wonder why. Whatever you think, can I remind you that it was a British vote and our Parliament chose to act on it (not very proficiently as it happens) however they chose to act on it. So repeating in every post 'it was rigged' does not make any difference. If you cannot see that you are either very obtuse or very obstinate.

I also believe how a country runs itself is really up to that country and that country alone, but by all means have opinions, but yours are becoming disturbingly obsessive.

[welovesundaysatspace]

14 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

So what your saying is any 2nd referendum is null and void even before it takes place due to the above

I am saying what I was saying: That a manipulated referendum must be declared void. Implementing a manipulated result is completely undemocratic. Of course, you can ignore that if it suits you. But then it doesn’t even suit you because you’re dividing the people that you need in future. You will always be told that you didn’t win the vote because it was manipulated. And you cannot prove otherwise because the vote was manipulated. 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

Why should it be secret?

Because we want our MPs to do what they honestly believe is best. Secrecy should not be necessary but these weak people have no spine.

 

I say again, secret ballot followed by ratification by the populous. This what referendums are actually for!

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Because we want our MPs to do what they honestly believe is best. Secrecy should not be necessary but these weak people have no spine.

 

I say again, secret ballot followed by ratification by the populous. This what referendums are actually for!

But for those of us who believe in a Parliamentary Democracy I don't think a second referendum would fair to our constitution.

[albertik]

Frexit anyone? I've a feeling France and some others are not far behind.  Italy or Spain.

[rixalex]

47 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So he wanted to be the perpetrator of a scam rather than the victim of it? Sure you're not projecting?

Taking your time with that textbook. Still on the psychological projection chapter i see.

[lamyai3]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

There is no shift in public opinion for a second referendum.

 

Curtice has also managed to present the opposite point of view, depending on the precise phrasing of the question. 

"He has also repeatedly written in the past month that there is some evidence for such a swing."

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/has-public-opinion-swung-favour-second-eu-referendum/

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Curtice has also managed to present the opposite point of view, depending on the precise phrasing of the question. 

"He has also repeatedly written in the past month that there is some evidence for such a swing."

 

https://fullfact.org/europe/has-public-opinion-swung-favour-second-eu-referendum/

Thanks for your link, but it does say in conclusion that:-

 

"There is some polling evidence of a shift in public opinion towards another referendum, but different polls have given inconsistent results, and results can vary a lot depending on what question is asked."

 

Hardly says conclusively that public opinion has shifted.

 

 

 

 

[whatsupdoc]

28 minutes ago, albertik said:

Frexit anyone? I've a feeling France and some others are not far behind.  Italy or Spain.

Why would they??? Sure, most EU countries have their populist minorities wishing for it but that's really it.

 

The support for the EU on the continent has actually increased since the Brexit vote (seeing the shambles that the UK makes of Brexit probably helped as well).

[vinny41]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I am saying what I was saying: That a manipulated referendum must be declared void. Implementing a manipulated result is completely undemocratic. Of course, you can ignore that if it suits you. But then it doesn’t even suit you because you’re dividing the people that you need in future. You will always be told that you didn’t win the vote because it was manipulated. And you cannot prove otherwise because the vote was manipulated. 

There have been reports that the 1975 EU membership referendum was subject to manipulation so should that referendum also be declared null and void

[7by7]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

<snip>

These are the posts that you claim again and again that the vote was rigged, you have been told on many occassion that both sides lied but you chose to ignore it,

We all know the lies told by the Leave campaign; the £350 million a week for the NHS which leaving would provide being the most obvious and well known.

 

I asked several days ago in a different thread for an example of a Remain campaign lie; so far no one has provided one.

 

Will you now do so?

 

I'm looking for a proven lie; not a projection which may or may not happen once we have actually left.

[lamyai3]

26 minutes ago, vogie said:

Thanks for your link, but it does say in conclusion that:-

 

"There is some polling evidence of a shift in public opinion towards another referendum, but different polls have given inconsistent results, and results can vary a lot depending on what question is asked."

 

Hardly says conclusively that public opinion has shifted

Probably the most objective of the polls referenced in the article is this one, which has stuck to the same question over a protracted period of time.

 

"One polling company, YouGov, has consistently asked the same question at regular intervals over the past year, which gives us the best opportunity to see if there is a long-term trend.

 

Their question is “Once the Brexit negotiations are complete and the terms of Britain's exit from the EU have been agreed, do you think there should or should not be a referendum to accept or reject them?”. The polling since April 2017 suggests that there has been a shift in favour of a second referendum - from a clear majority against a second vote a year ago, to a roughly even split in recent polls."

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

There have been reports that the 1975 EU membership referendum was subject to manipulation so should that referendum also be declared null and void

It may have escaped your notice, but we had a referendum in 2016 to decide whether or not to continue with the result of that one!

 

If the result of the 1975 referendum can be overturned by another one, why not the result of the 2016 one? Especially now that the true effects of Brexit are becoming more widely known.

 

What is it about another referendum that you Brexiteers are so afraid of? Surely if you are right then you will win again!

[tebee]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

But for those of us who believe in a Parliamentary Democracy I don't think a second referendum would fair to our constitution.

But in the UK referendums are only advisory - so what is wrong with asking someone twice ?

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, vinny41 said:

Here a better idea Each MP resign forcing a by election stand for re-election as a independent candidate on either A Leave or Remain ticket 

I have no objection to that.

 

How could that be delivered?

[vinny41]

8 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

It may have escaped your notice, but we had a referendum in 2016 to decide whether or not to continue with the result of that one!

 

If the result of the 1975 referendum can be overturned by another one, why not the result of the 2016 one? Especially now that the true effects of Brexit are becoming more widely known.

 

What is it about another referendum that you Brexiteers are so afraid of? Surely if you are right then you will win again!

It seems to be that remainers want to overturned the 2016 EU referendum because they claim is was subject to manipulation 

but don't wish to overturn the 1975 referendum which some reports claim was also subject to manipulation

If both the 2016 EU referendum and the 1975 referendum are both overturned then we will back to where we are now 

[tebee]

Read this thread - it's worth it!

 

 

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, vogie said:

I thought you were againgst referendums, which cap have you got on today.

Referendums should never be used to take opinions

 

Ratification of constitutional issues is correct.

 

 

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

But in the UK referendums are only advisory - so what is wrong with asking someone twice ?

 

If they cannot act on the first one, what makes you think they will act on a second, unless they get the result they want of course.

[7by7]

1 minute ago, vinny41 said:

It seems to be that remainers want to overturned the 2016 EU referendum because they claim is was subject to manipulation 

but don't wish to overturn the 1975 referendum which some reports claim was also subject to manipulation

If both the 2016 EU referendum and the 1975 referendum are both overturned then we will back to where we are now 

 The result of the 1975 referendum was to remain.

 

The result of the 2016 referendum was to leave; which overturned the result of the 1975 referendum.

 

If you can say what it is you still fail to understand about that, I'm sorry; but I don't see how it can be put any simpler.

 

 

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

But for those of us who believe in a Parliamentary Democracy I don't think a second referendum would fair to our constitution.

I agree

[vinny41]

4 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I have no objection to that.

 

How could that be delivered?

 

10 minutes ago, tebee said:

But in the UK referendums are only advisory - so what is wrong with asking someone twice ?

 

If thats the case why not ask people every 5 years the question on EU membership Yes / No

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Referendums should never be used to take opinions

 

Ratification of constitutional issues is correct.

 

 

But you miss the point, you say should never, but it was agreed by Parliament to have one, they passed a bill to allow the British electorate to have a vote whether to leave or remain in the EU. As we all know now the British public voted to leave. It was also promised to the British public that whatever the result was it would be enacted on, not we will think about what you said and remain all the same, but thanks for turning up and wasting 2 hours of your valuable time, time that could have been put to better use like washing our whippets or getting the thumb marks off our flat caps where we have doffed them to our superiors.

But I've said it once and I'll say it again, some people on here are so selfish, brexit is all about them.

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

These are the posts that you claim again and again that the vote was rigged, you have been told on many occassion that both sides lied but you chose to ignore it, I wonder why.

Since “both sides lied” as “been told on many occasion” my “claim (...) that the vote was rigged” is correct. 

 

Quote

Whatever you think, can I remind you that it was a British vote and our Parliament chose to act on it (not very proficiently as it happens) however they chose to act on it. So repeating in every post 'it was rigged' does not make any difference.

What of the things that people post here actually make any difference? The constant whining of some Brexiteers that their so-called “democratic” vote is being “overturned” maybe? Newsflash: None of our posts here makes any difference, whatever your opinion, whatever side you take. 

 

Quote

 

If you cannot see that you are either very obtuse or very obstinate.

I also believe how a country runs itself is really up to that country and that country alone, but by all means have opinions,

Oh, of course. If the U.K. wants run its country based on manipulated votes, it can do that. I never questioned that. 

Quote

but yours are becoming disturbingly obsessive.

So do many of yours. I guess we both have to accept that things are being repeated here again and again. 

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Since “both sides lied” as “been told on many occasion” my “claim (...) that the vote was rigged” is correct. 

 

What of the things that people post here actually make any difference? The constant whining of some Brexiteers that their so-called “democratic” vote is being “overturned” maybe? Newsflash: None of our posts here makes any difference, whatever your opinion, whatever side you take. 

 

Oh, of course. If the U.K. wants run its country based on manipulated votes, it can do that. I never questioned that. 

So do many of yours. I guess we both have to accept that things are being repeated here again and again. 

"So do many of yours. I guess we both have to accept that things are being repeated here again and again."

 

I try not to repeat myself, when people do it, it becomes tedious and extremely boring. Anyway if it hasn't sunk in by now, it probably never will. Keep up the mantra.

[dunroaming]

9 minutes ago, vinny41 said:

It seems to be that remainers want to overturned the 2016 EU referendum because they claim is was subject to manipulation 

but don't wish to overturn the 1975 referendum which some reports claim was also subject to manipulation

If both the 2016 EU referendum and the 1975 referendum are both overturned then we will back to where we are now 

The difference between the 1975 referendum and the 2016 one is that the negotiating was done before the vote in the 1975 one, so was based on facts, whereas the 2016 one was voted for based on fantasy promises.   That is the simple truth.

 

However all the bickering doesn't matter a jot to the outcome that will eventually come.  This is political and without a peoples vote we will continue to be lead by the nose and have our future decided by the political ambitions of fools and charlatans. 

[Baerboxer]

6 minutes ago, vogie said:

But you miss the point, you say should never, but it was agreed by Parliament to have one, they passed a bill to allow the British electorate to have a vote whether to leave or remain in the EU. As we all know now the British public voted to leave. It was also promised to the British public that whatever the result was it would be enacted on, not we will think about what you said and remain all the same, but thanks for turning up and wasting 2 hours of your valuable time, time that could have been put to better use like washing our whippets or getting the thumb marks off our flat caps where we have doffed them to our superiors.

But I've said it once and I'll say it again, some people on here are so selfish, brexit is all about them.

 

The wording in the bill which put the referendum in law said it was an advisory referendum.

 

Cameron promised he would act on the result. He did not say he would simply follow the result, probably because he knew that a PM can't just decide to do that. He then bottled it and buggered off. May kept repeating the mantra and tried to do it by misusing the Royal Prerogative, and when rightly challenged took it all the way to the Supreme Court - and lost. Had she won, she would have simply agreed her deal, and that would be the terms the UK exited on. But she lost. 

 

Corbyn was always anti EU and did little to provide much opposition to leaving, rather concentrating on exploiting the mess hoping to get a GE and get his now very left wing cabinet into government. LD's are lost in the wilderness.

 

Given this shambolic situation, the lying that went on during the campaigns, the clearer information now available and the very obvious lack of effective political control or politicians with balls in the House of Commons, a second referendum would seem quite sensible.

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

The wording in the bill which put the referendum in law said it was an advisory referendum.

 

Cameron promised he would act on the result. He did not say he would simply follow the result, probably because he knew that a PM can't just decide to do that. He then bottled it and buggered off. May kept repeating the mantra and tried to do it by misusing the Royal Prerogative, and when rightly challenged took it all the way to the Supreme Court - and lost. Had she won, she would have simply agreed her deal, and that would be the terms the UK exited on. But she lost. 

 

Corbyn was always anti EU and did little to provide much opposition to leaving, rather concentrating on exploiting the mess hoping to get a GE and get his now very left wing cabinet into government. LD's are lost in the wilderness.

 

Given this shambolic situation, the lying that went on during the campaigns, the clearer information now available and the very obvious lack of effective political control or politicians with balls in the House of Commons, a second referendum would seem quite sensible.

Your post is so biased my computer has just turned on it's side.????

[dunroaming]

16 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Cameron promised he would act on the result. He did not say he would simply follow the result, probably because he knew that a PM can't just decide to do that. He then bottled it and buggered off. May kept repeating the mantra and tried to do it by misusing the Royal Prerogative, and when rightly challenged took it all the way to the Supreme Court - and lost. Had she won, she would have simply agreed her deal, and that would be the terms the UK exited on. But she lost. 

That is an extremely good point.  I remember the uproar from the Brexiteers when she lost in the supreme Court.  How unjust they said it was.  And you are right that if she had won she would have just pushed this deal through and then the Brexiteers would really have something to cry about!

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I assume you mean ensure the minions never know the way their elected representatives voted?

So you think that whipping them into submission is preferable.