[flagged]
Even in a thread as wretched as this one, a tangent like this stands out as making things worse.
The idea that we must accept any deal is why the general public shouldn't be involved in the negotiations.
Why do you hate democracy? /sarcasm
It's probably best to redo whole thing.
How many times?
If people have not changed their mind the result will be the same.
If they have changed their mind they will have done it with the enormous, painful benefit of the past few years of hindsight.
In either case the result will be clearer than what we have now.
If the UK then votes to leave, I'll go with that, regretfully but I will.
Yes, push on, let's. Let's not compromise, rethink, allow a possibly bad decision to be reconsidered. Push on, forward, forward!
Since neither side wish to compromise, the above was my suggestion of a way forwards, where I would support brexit if I lost a 2nd ref.
What's yours?
(Oh, one more thing - the world's ecosystem has possibly started to collapse, which may kill millions and cause wars killing more, perhaps many more. But, BREXIT!!!!)
The nation isn't tearing itself apart. A bunch of us who lost the vote have decided to attempt to thwart the result. May was a remainer and a weak negotiator, other remainers are weakening the UKs negotiating position by insisting we can't walk away from a bad deal.
We lost. It's over. The vote was to leave. Let's leave.
And yes then let's fix the environment, knife crime and everything else too.
> The nation isn't tearing itself apart
We'll have to disagree there. Granted it's not actual civil war but it's politically stressed badly.
> We lost. It's over. The vote was to leave. Let's leave.
What is so terrifying about having a 2nd (and final) vote to check we haven't changed our minds? Specifically, what is wrong with it? Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?
> You appear to have confused BoJo with the ONS. I did not.
Are you sure? BoJo quoted the ONS correctly the UK sends the EU 350M. That the EU returns 150 of it doesn't change that the EU is determining how the UK spend the UK's money and then takes half of it for the EU.
> What is so terrifying about having a 2nd (and final) vote to check we haven't changed our minds?
> Specifically, what is wrong with it?
> Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?
You seem shaky on a number of things - are you a UK resident?
OK, to answer your point https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/heres-how-spectacularly-wrong...
"Just in case you hadn’t already cottoned on, the number plastered on the side of the Brexit bus was a big fat lie.
[...]
According to the new official estimates, the UK actually makes a net contribution to the EU of around £199 million a week."
So BloJo lied. Do you find it acceptable for a politician to lie to you?
> That the EU returns 150 of it doesn't change that the EU is determining how the UK spend the UK's money and then takes half of it for the EU.
True but irrelevant. Boris lied. That was my point. The ONS doesn't come into it.
Me: >> Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?
You: > See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090
Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote". That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please answer Yes or No.
"The ONS figures for 2015 suggest the UK’s gross contribution to the EU, before the cash rebate received by the UK, totalled £19.6 billion – or about £376 million a week. "
> You: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090
> Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote".
Yes. You seem to not have either read or understood that point.
> That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please answer Yes or No.
Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and undemocratic as you've already read, hopefully three times now. Maybe you can ingest that information, process it and even respond if you'd like to rebut it.
He lied and you seem ok with it.
> Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and undemocratic as you've already read
So Yes, people can change their mind, you allow, but no they shouldn't have a 2nd vote, you say, despite the fact they may have changed their mind.
So what am I supposed to conclude from that?
IMO it's problematic either way, but if we had a 2nd referendum at least "the will of the people" would be clearer. Which may give us a way forwards, which I proposed as a compromise, but you are trying to shut down.
Your compromise/way forward is... what?
There is no compromise. We lost. Asking people to vote a second time before disrespects the first referendum. I have explained this a fourth time. I'm blocking you now. You'll say it's because you're making amazing points, but actually it's because you're talking to yourself.
and I responded "True but irrelevant. Boris lied".
> Asking people to vote a second time before disrespects the first referendum
"Good evening madam, please be seated"
"Thank you. Let's see, I think I'll have the fish... no wait, the chicken looks good. I'll have the chick-"
"NO! You will have the fish"
"But I want the ch-"
"Do not do this! You wanted the fish and you will have the fish"
"But I changed my m-"
"You are disrespecting your first choice and I cannot allow this!"
Well, that's not how I see things.
> "True but irrelevant. Boris lied".
I mentioned you were having a discussion with yourself earlier, but thanks for providing an example.
"Fish is better"
"I'll have the chick-"
Person A shits all over chicken before it arrives
"Hah fish is better don't you want fish now?"