European Second Referendum

[malcd1]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

[TANGODANCER]

What I'm wondering is why we bothered having, a vote at all? It's pretty obvious that political power play is the governing ( pardon the pun) factor and always will be. Your common folk, you and me, (Insaney excepted) are not totally au-faix with all the issues and rely on government advice to guide us as it's the country we're talking about and not Joe Bloggs or Nora Batty (or their equivalents not named Smith or Brown), your local red or blue rosette wearers (used to be yellow for Labour way back when), but us all. So we vote....get a result and then have months and months of insinuations of cheating, foul play, dark deeds, sackings, resignations and the ever present financial hoo-ha. All we need now are allegations of drug taking vote-counters and a few thirty year old smut revelations, and the game will be back to square one. Roll those dice.....

[BWFC_Insane]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

[BWFC_Insane]

In a democracy I don't think its too much to "ask again". Especially given a) the illegality concerned with the first vote and b) the fact that none of the promises made by leavers can be delivered on.

It is. The democracy voted, Parliament accepted and acted on the result and still you wail on about it not being fair because you don't agree. Get over it man.. Had remain won, would you have held the same views? Here's an Omar Khayyam quatrain that's entirely relevant:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

One side broke the rules. That isn't opinion. It is fact established by the Electoral Commission and our courts.

In a non binding referendum. If your argument is we are forever more bound by a dodgy vote then I strongly refute that is what democracy means.

[TANGODANCER]

In a democracy I don't think its too much to "ask again". Especially given a) the illegality concerned with the first vote and b) the fact that none of the promises made by leavers can be delivered on.

It is. The democracy voted, Parliament accepted and acted on the result and still you wail on about it not being fair because you don't agree. Get over it man.. Had remain won, would you have held the same views? Here's an Omar Khayyam quatrain that's entirely relevant:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

One side broke the rules. That isn't opinion. It is fact established by the Electoral Commission and our courts.

In a non binding referendum. If your argument is we are forever more bound by a dodgy vote then I strongly refute that is what democracy means.

Ah, you are Sir Galahad quoting truth and light on the topic of politics? Really? Only the remainers are claiming the vote was dodgy because they lost. The masses know nothing of what jiggery-pokery goes on in Westminster; we don't even know if we voted the right way, just that we voted our opinion, rightly or wrongly and now the losers ( the political factions that is) are howling foul play. The question was simple to the public; Exit or Remain. Exit won and all the non-binding claims and all the rest of it doesn't alter the fact that in a general election the result was determined. Don't twist democracy to mean you own personal view, it doesn't. It means will of the people.

[BWFC_Insane]

In a democracy I don't think its too much to "ask again". Especially given a) the illegality concerned with the first vote and b) the fact that none of the promises made by leavers can be delivered on.

It is. The democracy voted, Parliament accepted and acted on the result and still you wail on about it not being fair because you don't agree. Get over it man.. Had remain won, would you have held the same views? Here's an Omar Khayyam quatrain that's entirely relevant:

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit. Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

One side broke the rules. That isn't opinion. It is fact established by the Electoral Commission and our courts.

In a non binding referendum. If your argument is we are forever more bound by a dodgy vote then I strongly refute that is what democracy means.

Ah, you are Sir Galahad quoting truth and light on the topic of politics? Really? Only the remainers are claiming the vote was dodgy because they lost. The masses know nothing of what jiggery-pokery goes on in Westminster; we don't even know if we voted the right way, just that we voted our opinion, rightly or wrongly and now the losers ( the political factions that is) are howling foul play. The question was simple to the public; Exit or Remain. Exit won and all the non-binding claims and all the rest of it doesn't alter the fact that in a general election the result was determined. Don't twist democracy to mean you own personal view, it doesn't. It means will of the people.

But that patently isn't true. Our high court and electoral commission both found illegality in the leave campaign's behavior.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ You Sir, are a complete and utter wazzock.
I think you'll find that whatever the outcome of the court case is, then fines will be imposed. Judgement will have been served and Justice seen to have been done. No fxcking judge is going to say "RERUN THE FXCKING REFERENDUM, and cancel history TO RE-RUN THE 2017 ELECTION BECAUSE BWFCi FEELS HARD DONE BY". Grow up.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

He can't answer yet, Tango. His mum just called him for his cocoa.

I think his mum laces his cocoa. With what I don't know but it's probably stronger than Tramadol.

[BWFC_Insane]

^ You Sir, are a complete and utter wazzock.
I think you'll find that whatever the outcome of the court case is, then fines will be imposed. Judgement will have been served and Justice seen to have been done. No fxcking judge is going to say "RERUN THE FXCKING REFERENDUM, and cancel history TO RE-RUN THE 2017 ELECTION BECAUSE BWFCi FEELS HARD DONE BY". Grow up.

Were it legally binding the outcome would have been deemed null and void. The fact it was non-binding means that it cannot be overruled. According to legal experts.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ You Sir, are a complete and utter wazzock.
I think you'll find that whatever the outcome of the court case is, then fines will be imposed. Judgement will have been served and Justice seen to have been done. No fxcking judge is going to say "RERUN THE FXCKING REFERENDUM, and cancel history TO RE-RUN THE 2017 ELECTION BECAUSE BWFCi FEELS HARD DONE BY". Grow up.

Were it legally binding the outcome would have been deemed null and void. The fact it was non-binding means that it cannot be overruled. According to legal experts.

If unicorns did exist they'd have been extinct. The fact they don't exist means they aren't extinct. According to conspiracy theorists.
Nah nah nyerh nah

[BWFC_Insane]

^ You Sir, are a complete and utter wazzock.
I think you'll find that whatever the outcome of the court case is, then fines will be imposed. Judgement will have been served and Justice seen to have been done. No fxcking judge is going to say "RERUN THE FXCKING REFERENDUM, and cancel history TO RE-RUN THE 2017 ELECTION BECAUSE BWFCi FEELS HARD DONE BY". Grow up.

Were it legally binding the outcome would have been deemed null and void. The fact it was non-binding means that it cannot be overruled. According to legal experts.

If unicorns did exist they'd have been extinct. The fact they don't exist means they aren't extinct. According to conspiracy theorists.
Nah nah nyerh nah

I can only deal in the facts.

You cannot rule a non binding outcome null and void since it is simply advisory. The government have ignored the illegality and pressed on. They cannot be compelled to do otherwise. Were it legally binding then the result would in all likelihood not have stood.

A second legally binding vote would be final. And decisive. It wouldn't incidentally be my number one option, but is, in my view the most democratic thing to do here. Any other solution is going to be one that the vast majority will ultimately say "I did not vote for". Including May's deal that has support based on polling sub 35%.

[malcd1]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

[BWFC_Insane]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

There is again false equivalence though. They incorrectly coded some donations. They were fined.

Vs spending far in excess of what the rules allow and deliberately trying to cover it up.....

We're talking small technical rule breaches vs huge illegality that experts believe directly influenced the result.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

There is again false equivalence though. They incorrectly coded some donations. They were fined.

Vs spending far in excess of what the rules allow and deliberately trying to cover it up.....

We're talking small technical rule breaches vs huge illegality that experts believe directly influenced the result.

You really are on a mission, aren't you.
I can't speak for the other 17,500,998 but whatever illegality you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

[BWFC_Insane]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

There is again false equivalence though. They incorrectly coded some donations. They were fined.

Vs spending far in excess of what the rules allow and deliberately trying to cover it up.....

We're talking small technical rule breaches vs huge illegality that experts believe directly influenced the result.

You really are on a mission, aren't you.
I can't speak for the other 17,500,998 but whatever illegality you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota.

I'm musing how many of the 17M Germans who voted for the Nazis in 1933 said "I can't speak for the other 17.2M but the violent threats, intimidation and shutting down of opposition parties you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota"?

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

There is again false equivalence though. They incorrectly coded some donations. They were fined.

Vs spending far in excess of what the rules allow and deliberately trying to cover it up.....

We're talking small technical rule breaches vs huge illegality that experts believe directly influenced the result.

You really are on a mission, aren't you.
I can't speak for the other 17,500,998 but whatever illegality you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota.

I'm musing how many of the 17M Germans who voted for the Nazis in 1933 said "I can't speak for the other 17.2M but the violent threats, intimidation and shutting down of opposition parties you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota"?

I'm musing how somebody on the losing side of a democratic result constantly compares the winning voters to Nazis. Keep on banging on about it, you might convince somebody, if only yourself...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

[BWFC_Insane]

Where as this is legal and absolutely fair:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45519676

As I mentioned in my earlier post, there is no good guys here. Both parties lied, lied and lied again. You BWFCi choose to ignore one sides indiscretions because you agree with their views. Take your blinkers off and open your eyes.

You've linked me to an article where the high court backs up the findings of the EC - that the leave campaign broke the rules......

Not really sure how that helps you. If you're saying "they were misled by the EC" fine. But they still broke the rules.

Copied wrong link

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/po ... n-campaign

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/fo ... m-expenses

There is again false equivalence though. They incorrectly coded some donations. They were fined.

Vs spending far in excess of what the rules allow and deliberately trying to cover it up.....

We're talking small technical rule breaches vs huge illegality that experts believe directly influenced the result.

You really are on a mission, aren't you.
I can't speak for the other 17,500,998 but whatever illegality you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota.

I'm musing how many of the 17M Germans who voted for the Nazis in 1933 said "I can't speak for the other 17.2M but the violent threats, intimidation and shutting down of opposition parties you are banging on about didn't influence my vote by one iota"?

I'm musing how somebody on the losing side of a democratic result constantly compares the winning voters to Nazis. Keep on banging on about it, you might convince somebody, if only yourself...

If one side hadn't committed illegalities then as much as I didn't agree with the outcome I would concede that there was no grounds for a second vote - as much as I might want one. Having been found guilty (and in the eye of experts having unlawfully influenced the results) I don't think a second vote would be in any way "undemocratic". My first choice would be a Norway style deal - it would mean we've left the EU can get on with trade and business can carry on. We'd not be locked in and so could still pursue a free trade deal immediately or any point in the future. That would in my view be preferable to a 2nd vote.

But the reality is that are you sure that you're more likely to get the outcome you want without a second say?