Second referendum

[Borin' Baggie]

We need to take No Deal and a 2nd referendum off the table. Then the fugg wits in parliament cam work out what flavour of Brexit they will actually vote for.

We should have done that 3 years ago, now it's too late.

[LockHard]

The Brexiteers are screeching that the No-Deal vote is only advisory. So was the referendum but they won't say that.

[strawman]

The Brexiteers are screeching that the No-Deal vote is only advisory. So was the referendum but they won't say that.

The referendum was advisory, however it was promised in the leaflet that was sent out that the result would be implemented, since when the decision to leave has been passed into law. The decision last night does not over-ride law advisory or not, as confirmed by the speaker.

[baggy1]

Last nights vote wasn't about passing a law or making a decision, it was simply to get a view from parliament on what they wanted. Narrowly, like the referendum, parliament decided to take no deal off the table.

The part that is written into law is that we will be leaving the EU on March 29th, parliament have decided, last night, that they want to do that with an agreement in place. As there is no agreement that parliament have agreed on (by the way that will have to be put to the EU and they are under no obligation to accept) then parliament will probably ask for an extension to article 50. In order to do that they will need a reason, because again the EU don't have to accept that. The most obvious way of extending will be a referendum because the EU will accept that and it will get the authority that the government need to take the next step (whichever way that is).

[Derek Hardballs]

Last nights vote wasn't about passing a law or making a decision, it was simply to get a view from parliament on what they wanted. Narrowly, like the referendum, parliament decided to take no deal off the table.

The part that is written into law is that we will be leaving the EU on March 29th, parliament have decided, last night, that they want to do that with an agreement in place. As there is no agreement that parliament have agreed on (by the way that will have to be put to the EU and they are under no obligation to accept) then parliament will probably ask for an extension to article 50. In order to do that they will need a reason, because again the EU don't have to accept that. The most obvious way of extending will be a referendum because the EU will accept that and it will get the authority that the government need to take the next step (whichever way that is).

Exactly

[The Real PK]

Well I've read this entire thread and the whole situation still makes absolutely fucking zero sense to me. I think I shall remain in the "I don't give a toss if we stay or leave" pile.

[Beano]

We need to take No Deal and a 2nd referendum off the table. Then the fugg wits in parliament cam work out what flavour of Brexit they will actually vote for.

You trust this bunch of fuckwits to make a decision that is the best for the country and in our interests. I'd rather find out what the best deal is and then have someone ask me if i think it's a good idea.

2nd referendum all day long - alternatively virtually the whole country will be saying 'that's not what I agreed to'.

They didn't agree with the first. Why would they with the 2nd? Perhaps we could then have a 3rd to make triple sure?

The 1st one was about whether or not we should leave the EU. There was no detail behind it or known impact, it was a simple 'what do you think' question.

The 2nd one is based on a lot more fact and understanding - they would be totally different votes. Sorry CIM but the 'Huh, Huh, best of three' point raised by leavers is fucking pathetic.

The vote was by the very nature of a referendum a single question referred for a direct decision, it could never be more than that
and it was more what do you want rather than what do you think. The debate beforehand was the opportunity to put across points
about the consequences. The problem was that the leave campaigners focused on the money saving aspect and freedom potential,
while the remain campaign chose to predict economic collapse, huge job losses and the peace of Europe would be at risk. Neither
side seeked to educate, just the opposite.

The truth is that both campaigns were full of rubbish, we will still need immigration, the NHS will benefit from taxpayers money
not from the EU budget. The economy is still growing, jobs are at an all time high and war is not likely.

Any 2nd vote will still be shrouded by scare stories rather than fact and hopeless promises not outcomes. It may produce a different
decision, but it will be essentially the remain campaign hoping to stop brexit not put across intellectual arguments to re-consider.          

I trust those in Westminster about as much as those in Brussels, all self serving windbags stealing a living because in truth very
few of us scrutinise or engage with them at all.

[baggy1]

All good points - So what do you suggest?

[billybassett]

We need to take No Deal and a 2nd referendum off the table. Then the fugg wits in parliament cam work out what flavour of Brexit they will actually vote for.

You trust this bunch of fuckwits to make a decision that is the best for the country and in our interests. I'd rather find out what the best deal is and then have someone ask me if i think it's a good idea.

2nd referendum all day long - alternatively virtually the whole country will be saying 'that's not what I agreed to'.

They didn't agree with the first. Why would they with the 2nd? Perhaps we could then have a 3rd to make triple sure?

That is such a stupid argument it's untrue. 

The 1st one was about whether or not we should leave the EU. There was no detail behind it or known impact, it was a simple 'what do you think' question.

The 2nd one is based on a lot more fact and understanding - they would be totally different votes. Sorry CIM but the 'Huh, Huh, best of three' point raised by leavers is fucking pathetic.

Agreed

If there was a referendum that said Would you like to eradicate Poverty in the UK - YES NO then everybody would probably vote Yes because as with the Brexit campaign nobody would have really known at the time what that really means for the people, the economy, our laws and state. If then 3 years later the eradicate poverty deal meant everyone giving half their wages, one car per household and everyone taking a poor person in quite rightly people may say why wasn't that info provided so I could vote in an informed way.

Whilst this example is a little facile the fact is if the question would have been Do you want to leave the EU with a deal that will mean the country will be worse off than if we stayed in? maybe the result would have been different.

These numpties who are trying to say we knew what we were voting for and leave means leave are just plain ignorant and no doubt just want all the foreigners out...(runs off quickly...)

[HeathAyIt]

They just voted against another referendum but voted for a delay.

Fucks sake. Another X months of all this bollocks. And Theresa May.

If we cant sort it out in 2 years, what use is an extra 12 weeks.