Quantcast
Brexit
contestgamer said:
Barozi said:

You act like the last referendum was the first for the UK to stay in the EU. You're wrong.
There is NO reason not to make a "second" referendum. Since then millions of young people became eligible to vote and millions of old people have died, which makes their vote worthless. If the result stays the same, so be it. But ignoring those millions of votes is definitely much more undemocratic.

That is really dumb logic. We should have elections every year then. Actually every day, because many old people die daily and young are born too.

1. referendums aren't elections.
2. I explained the reasons why an election shouldn't be done every year in my following post.
3. results of general elections have an impact within a few weeks after the election is over. This referendum will start having an (legal) impact almost 3 years later.
Question: Would you make a final decision 3 years in advance for something important and then stand with it no matter what things have changed in the mean time or would you rather check if it's still the right decision some time before the deadline ends to make the decision?



Around the Network
Barozi said:
phinch1 said:

Well..... Unfortunately that's how a vote works, the one with the most votes winst he one with the least loses, you could say that about anything though, since the last General election, how many people have died and how many people have become eligible to vote, let's have another election, we have new talent in the England team, let's have a go at the 2018 World Cup again 

You obviously don't seem to know why you do a general election every 4 or 5 years instead of every year. The government can't implement everything they promise within such a short period of time. You wouldn't even notice what has changed and which party is responsible for it. Also the MPs would spend more time with campaigning than doing politics. A stable coalition government wouldn't be possible, since you're constantly fighting for votes.

Also this is still not a reason not do do another referendum. You just pointed at something different (a referendum is not an election after all) and then concluded that this must be true for this as well. By March 2019, the last referendum will be almost 3 years old. Also I hope you realize that the last referendum was only advisory at the time. Voting Leave or Remain didn't have any legal consequences

 

So if we'd have voted to remain, it would have only been advisory ? We should have had another vote nearly 3 years later? And every three years then on? 



Job well done flawless trolling



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

Barozi said:
contestgamer said:

That is really dumb logic. We should have elections every year then. Actually every day, because many old people die daily and young are born too.

1. referendums aren't elections.
2. I explained the reasons why an election shouldn't be done every year in my following post.
3. results of general elections have an impact within a few weeks after the election is over. This referendum will start having an (legal) impact almost 3 years later.
Question: Would you make a final decision 3 years in advance for something important and then stand with it no matter what things have changed in the mean time or would you rather check if it's still the right decision some time before the deadline ends to make the decision?

There is no "right" decision. There is simply the will of the people. No one asked for it to take 3 years, that's just how it played out. You cant have a double standard here - if you vote NO then there's no 3 year decision to make so ergo we dont need a revote according to your logic. The election wasnt forced to happen when it did.



Barozi said:
phinch1 said:

Both sides had 1 year on TV debating this, a second referendum would be ignoring democracy, you would literally have riots on the streets especially with the yellow vest movement becoming very popular. 

You act like the last referendum was the first for the UK to stay in the EU. You're wrong.
There is NO reason not to make a "second" referendum. Since then millions of young people became eligible to vote and millions of old people have died, which makes their vote worthless. If the result stays the same, so be it. But ignoring those millions of votes is definitely much more undemocratic.

The people that don't want another referendum know deep in their hearts that they will lose hard this time. Whatever brexit movement there is pales in comparison to remainers now. We have had many protests demonstrating this.



Around the Network
phinch1 said:
Barozi said:

You obviously don't seem to know why you do a general election every 4 or 5 years instead of every year. The government can't implement everything they promise within such a short period of time. You wouldn't even notice what has changed and which party is responsible for it. Also the MPs would spend more time with campaigning than doing politics. A stable coalition government wouldn't be possible, since you're constantly fighting for votes.

Also this is still not a reason not do do another referendum. You just pointed at something different (a referendum is not an election after all) and then concluded that this must be true for this as well. By March 2019, the last referendum will be almost 3 years old. Also I hope you realize that the last referendum was only advisory at the time. Voting Leave or Remain didn't have any legal consequences

So if we'd have voted to remain, it would have only been advisory ? We should have had another vote nearly 3 years later? And every three years then on? 

Of course it would have been advisory. You were already in it, so it wouldn't have changed a thing. However the government (with the help of the parliament) could've easily ignored the remain vote and still initiate the Brexit as it is today.

There's no reason to make that final decision almost 3 years before the change begins. If you still vote with leave, then no. You will leave, immediately. No 3 more years since that was the necessary contractual amount to wait to declare the Brexit (well 2 years AFAIR but the UK government wasted a few months). However as I mentioned before, referendums do return. There is no decision that will decide your fate for all eternity. If there's demand for it, there could be another referendum to join the EU again within the next 5 years....if the EU agrees to that of course.



contestgamer said:
dark_gh0st_b0y said:

It really was the biggest democratic exercise, but with many flaws:

- both sides exaggerated in their campaigns giving a very deluded picture to the people, this was very easy to do since promises were based on predictions (Leave campaign's is proving to be the most distant from reality- £350m extra for the run by EU staff NHS anyone?)
- Leave campaigns broke the spending law at least once, how is the referendum democratic if one side broke the fair play law? not to mention taking advantage of people's personal information to promote targeted facebook ads, most of them filled with lies https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44966969
- Scotland and N.Ireland are being dragged out against their will, there is a real risk for Scotexit or NIrexit, especially with no deal, the break up of the kingdom is the worst possible outcome, would make no deal a real devastation
- the Irish border was barely taken into account during the campaigns but turned out to be a real issue

Leave won but the result was very close, going with no deal would ignore the 48%, hence May's deal is the right thing to do

if not, taking into account the actual facts, people must be asked if this is really the path they want to take, since it will affect the country for decades, and mostly the young people who had no say 2.5 years ago

2nd referendum = more democracy

10th referendum = even more democracy

1 a month referendum = even more

practically impossible since negotiations take 2 years and referendum legislation 6 months to pass, so one every 3 years max

EU membership is a long term thing, business and governments must know where to invest and direct their biggest projects, hope that answers your ironic reply ;)



contestgamer said:
Barozi said:

1. referendums aren't elections.
2. I explained the reasons why an election shouldn't be done every year in my following post.
3. results of general elections have an impact within a few weeks after the election is over. This referendum will start having an (legal) impact almost 3 years later.
Question: Would you make a final decision 3 years in advance for something important and then stand with it no matter what things have changed in the mean time or would you rather check if it's still the right decision some time before the deadline ends to make the decision?

There is no "right" decision. There is simply the will of the people. No one asked for it to take 3 years, that's just how it played out. You cant have a double standard here - if you vote NO then there's no 3 year decision to make so ergo we dont need a revote according to your logic. The election wasnt forced to happen when it did.

So would you ignore the will of the people to do another referendum?
It was well known that it would take at least 2 years, it was part of the contract, so you're wrong.



Barozi said:
contestgamer said:

There is no "right" decision. There is simply the will of the people. No one asked for it to take 3 years, that's just how it played out. You cant have a double standard here - if you vote NO then there's no 3 year decision to make so ergo we dont need a revote according to your logic. The election wasnt forced to happen when it did.

So would you ignore the will of the people to do another referendum?
It was well known that it would take at least 2 years, it was part of the contract, so you're wrong.

Doesnt make logical sense. You're ignoring the will of the people that voted no in order to hear the will of the people that want to vote again?

A vote was cast. Whether it takes 2 years of 5 doesn't matter. A decision was made. Millions of people voted that may now be dead, who died with a sense of satisfaction that they believed they left a better future for their kids and grand kids with their vote. You don't get to wait 2 years for people you dont like to die so you can get your way with a revote. You can have another referendum sometime in the future - I say it should be as many years away from today as this first referendum was from when the UK originally joined the EU for fairness. In the meantime a vote was cast and it should be enacted. 



OTBWY said:
Barozi said:

You act like the last referendum was the first for the UK to stay in the EU. You're wrong.
There is NO reason not to make a "second" referendum. Since then millions of young people became eligible to vote and millions of old people have died, which makes their vote worthless. If the result stays the same, so be it. But ignoring those millions of votes is definitely much more undemocratic.

The people that don't want another referendum know deep in their hearts that they will lose hard this time. Whatever brexit movement there is pales in comparison to remainers now. We have had many protests demonstrating this.

I would be totally fine if they voted for leave again. No one could really be mad about it after the desastrous amount of misinformation last time.
But I totally agree with you. They barely won it last time and now they're afraid to lose the next potential referendum and all we get is pathetic excuses why another referendum would be undemocratic. Hilarious double standards.