Farage, the morons messiah....

Like you give a toss about them, fella
Shush you disgusting selfish capitalist barsteward. Just remember when the gerrymandered polls are published indicating that everyone in the UK wants to remain in the EU that they were paid for by poor Indians who don't even know where Brussels is.

The poor things.
Ah yes the conspiracy that the Govt is trying to sabotage brexit and the EU are sabotaging the talks by not agreeing to all our demands....the bastards.
 
WTF has that got to do with the two votes being for two different things...?!
That the contention I was responding to was that since there was no specific provision in the 2016 referendum about revoting later, there couldn't be a revote.

Since the same provision was missing from the original 'in', we either conclude that for consistency's sake there shouldn't ever have been a revote; or that the contention was bollocks and referendums can be revisited as many times as the electorate want.

I came down on the side of the latter, incidentally.
 

Baglock

On ROPS
On ROPs
I see baglock is sucking you off, still makes a change from him using the Dumb button
The only sucking off occurring here is the distasteful gobbling of Nigel.

The morons messiah indeed.

Farage is the slightly more respectable privately educated millionaire, man uf da peepul version of Tommy Robinson.

They should form a political party together. Nigel could hoover up the pensioners and middle classes and TR could capture the vote of the real bottom feeders, so long as polling day doesn't clash with football hooliganism antics
 
That the contention I was responding to was that since there was no specific provision in the 2016 referendum about revoting later, there couldn't be a revote.

Since the same provision was missing from the original 'in', we either conclude that for consistency's sake there shouldn't ever have been a revote; or that the contention was bollocks and referendums can be revisited as many times as the electorate want.

I came down on the side of the latter, incidentally.
Given the two are not connected, join a trade org and leave an overbearing political superstate beingin no way remotely similar, your point is mute.
 
Given the two are not connected, join a trade org and leave an overbearing political superstate beingin no way remotely similar, your point is mute.
Except that the joining of the first explicitly contained membership of the second - with no provision for a revote.

So either referendums are one-off deals never to be revisited, or they can be rerun time and again whenever a sufficiently large portion of the electorate wish it.
 
Except that the joining of the first explicitly contained membership of the second - with no provision for a revote.

So either referendums are one-off deals never to be revisited, or they can be rerun time and again whenever a sufficiently large portion of the electorate wish it.
Stop telling lies. Nothing in the 75 ref ever envisioned anything as hideous as the EU.
 
Stop telling lies. Nothing in the 75 ref ever envisioned anything as hideous as the EU.
"Ever closer union." Ring any bells?

But let's assume for a moment that the two were substantially different and therefore a second referendum was entirely appropriate. Why would that not also apply to the difference between what we were promised in 2016 and what we're getting now?
 
That the contention I was responding to was that since there was no specific provision in the 2016 referendum about revoting later, there couldn't be a revote.

Since the same provision was missing from the original 'in', we either conclude that for consistency's sake there shouldn't ever have been a revote; or that the contention was bollocks and referendums can be revisited as many times as the electorate want.

I came down on the side of the latter, incidentally.
How can the 2016 vote be a "revote" on 1975 when the 1975 vote was about whether to stay in the common market and the 2016 vote was about whether to stay in the EU?
 
Stop telling lies. Nothing in the 75 ref ever envisioned anything as hideous as the EU.
Although when Wilson's papers were released under the thirty year rule I seem to recall they contained evidence that he knew that that was the top secret cunning plan ultimate long term aim all along. The lying bastard.
 

Pob02

LE
Book Reviewer
Everyone is entitled to their point of view.

The referendum was decided and the result was in favour of those wishing to leave. Those that are moaning are the ones on the losing side /
There is actually an awful lot of moaning from those on the Leave side. Mainly about how it is not as easy as they thought to implement, or how the vision they had is not the same as that which is a possibility of being put in place.
 
How can the 2016 vote be a "revote" on 1975 when the 1975 vote was about whether to stay in the common market and the 2016 vote was about whether to stay in the EU?
Because the 1975 vote was not solely on the situation at the time. It was about being part of whatever changes were made, without needing a new referendum on staying in each time.
 
There is actually an awful lot of moaning from those on the Leave side. Mainly about how it is not as easy as they thought to implement, or how the vision they had is not the same as that which is a possibility of being put in place.
Can't say I can hear it over the constant screeching and squealing of remainers.

Nige says he's getting on a bus and you all piss yourselves silly.

Excellent.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top