Since people love the shit or get off the pot analogy as much as they do the buying a house one, i'll go ahead and use both.
You've made an offer, found out the home report and brochure are full of shit, and, chances are you might have to rebuild the house you are buying at great expense, or keep endlessly patching it up and ploughing money into it. And chances are your neigbour will hate you either way. Do you follow through, just because you have made an initisl choice, or stop and think.
Sit on the pot you have a bit longer where it is still at least somewhat warm and you and your neighbors tolerate each other.
No I’m not, that’s true :-)Liar!
you
Your perspective misapprehends human nature. The notion that people who voted to leave will (in the main) view it as a near miss is wholly misconceived.
So what you're saying is that the Leave side should just accept a 2nd referendum result.If they think they really want it that bad, why, and what it is worth, then back a party that promises it again at the next G.E.
If any are bold or capable of ever trying it again and getting the numbers.
Because they still make up more or less half the country, depending on which poll you want to believe. You can't govern solely for the 'winners'. A decent MP will understand that they represent *all* of their constituents, not just the ones who voted them in. The same applies here. And yes if remain had won I absolutely would have wanted to see action to address the concerns of leave voters. If it had been 52/48 in the other direction that would have been far too many people to ignore also.
I would bet that Swinson's tits may make her speeches more attractive, but the chances of the Libs persuading an*applauds*
And by all accounts, if the remainer lobby after brexit wishes to continue with a campaign to have us rejoin the EU, (as Swinson has recently stated the Lib Dems would be) it would be entirely justfied on their part because rejoining is an entirely different discussion, one which then falls upon leave/brexit advocates to argue against by proposing the merits of independence.
As in everything democratic, the public will decide collectively which argument they support. Many leavers would be disappointed, after having secured independence from the EU, only to see us go back in, but none of them could ever say that such a process was "undemocratic", if we were to rejoin, either by referendum or voting in MP's and a Government which publicly supported the idea of rejoining the EU as party of it's manifesto pledges.
Only one of them is PM though :-)
I think the analogy is useful but ultimately doesn't really match. A better analogy would be that we'd exchanged contracts and moved in, only to find these things out. The referendum didn't ask people if the government should investigate the ins and outs of whether we should leave or not. It was a binding vote. (Morally if not technically legally).
That's what they did the last time.If they think they really want it that bad, why, and what it is worth, then back a party that promises it again at the next G.E.
If any are bold or capable of ever trying it again and getting the numbers.
So what you're saying is that the Leave side should just accept a 2nd referendum result.
Whereas the Remain side need not accept the first referendum result.
That's not really on mate, is it.
Very hard to argue with any of the above. A well thought out post regardless of where you sit on the Brexit debate. Thanks for sharing.Our democratic system would collapse if we didn't govern solely for the winners. Will Labour be enacting Tory policies if they won an election by a single vote? Not a chance.
If we had voted to remain by 0.1% then would you accept we must leave the EU with a soft-Brexit to satisfy all parties.....?
The whole point of the first referendum was to determine whether we leave or not and nothing more because that is all the question demanded.
People decided in that to leave and they didn't have the knowledge of what leave meant but now they do so surely the only referendum we can have is one where we decide how to leave.
Putting remain back on there just means you aren't interested in respecting any referendum and actually all you want is an opportunity to get the result that lost.
I am now officially a leaver, and it's got to be by 31 October.
I agree with your last sentiment entirely but there are others who clearly have a different perspective than that Blair, Osborne, Johnson but to name a few. Its a question of morality in all this when you consider the shape of Johnson's agreements which involves a very radical change to our current economic and social models. When they are supposed to be acting in the interest of the people that they serve and have economic impact assessments when does the realisation kick in that shaving 7% off GDP over the next few years is not such a good idea.
Then you have to question why rail road a deal through without the usual scrutiny that is going to cause such harm to the country? Who are they doing this for clearly not in the best interest to the population of the United Kingdom.
That's a better idea, preferably with her in it.Could just blow up the cafe.
I wasn't thinking about her being anywhere else at the time :)That's a better idea, preferably with her in it.
That's what they did the last time.
Both Labour and the Conservatives stated they were committed to brexit. They had different views on how it should be achieved, but both were parties that "respected the referendum result". The public has seen that one is committed and the other is uhming and ahing.
He's a wankstain.