Leavers being so dead against a second referendum is just proof they know they'll lose, surely?

[stillpinching]

If we had one and they won again it would be the ultimate confirmation that it really is the will of the people.

By refusing to countenance it and describing it as a betrayal they may as well say it's not the will of the people anymore we're insisting on honouring something no one with any sense and without a vested interest wants and we should therefore call it off.

We're being forced into something the people who most support it clearly know is no longer the people's choice that's going to do horrible damage to the country. Just why can no one stop it???

Surely the kind of republic any sane person would want is more like Ireland, Germany or India where the president is head of state but not the top politician.

I’m actually wondering who would stand as an MEP. Presumably the existing ones have found themselves other jobs, who knows how long the roles (which will involve moving home to another country) will last! To June? To the end of this year? To the end of next year? As very temporary members will anyone listen to them? I don’t think there would be any opportunity for these people to have any impact at all.

Window - no one in their right mind wants an inailable bill of rights. Far better to have negative rights surely. Less chance of numpties going on about their rights (eg NRA, terrorists trying to claim their right to a family life etc). Much more flexible to change with he times.

But doesn't it make a mockery of democracy? It would be like running an election, labour/conservatives win and we want an immediate rerun of the election.

People voted. They made a decision on how they wanted to vote and that vote was actionable by the government.

By all means offer the electorate a choice of leave options, from soft to hard, but putting a remain option which would just be a cynical ploy would betray democracy.

Many leavers want out of the EU because of its lack of democracy so why betray voters by a rerun of the referendum?

And as for 'peoples vote', fyi 'people' also voted last time, not their pets.

Its clear that you are stuck on the term political. And if life teaches you anything its that you don't always get what you want.

You haven’t actually answered any of my questions, but I’ll conclude that’s because you can’t.

Being an MEP doesn’t involve moving to another country, they commute to Brussels, it’s a very short flight. The Change party is looking to field a candidate for every constituency, so is the Brexit party. The results will be very interesting, my bet is that turnout will be high in Remain areas and low in Leave ones.

Windowsareforcheaters

You haven't pissed me off as your point about guilty by association as proven by yourself is bollocks.

If anything you amuse me by the twisting that you are doing to deny and change what you have said.

The extreme Brexit supporters are racist and consider all support for Brexit as validating their views.

even this is incorrect

'Some of the racists that are Brexit supporters consider all support for Brexit as validating their views.'

Would be more factual but that isn't what you have said, you have said that you consider brexiters racists as they are guilty by association with racists that voted leave.

But doesn't it make a mockery of democracy?

If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy,

I’d like to say that was Plato or Democrates but it was David Davis.

LaurieMarlow

You haven’t actually answered any of my questions, but I’ll conclude that’s because you can’t.

Conclude away, But I have answered your questions, you either don't like or don't understand the answers.

So I will make it clear for you. We can be involved with any country, trade, welfare, military etc. without being involved deeply with their politics.

and yes that would also include the EU.

ContinuityError

The issue would seem to be that the powers that be don't know their own mind, whether leave, remain or abstain.

LittleChristmasMouse
We still have a veto on all votes which require unanimity.
Isn't one of the issues taxation? So quite a big issue if we have to implement it.

Just googled this and you are correct;

January 2019 The European Commission has proposed scrapping member states’ veto on tax policy, in a move that could see levies imposed on EU countries against their will.

"Brussels says the requirement of unanimity for tax policy is out-dated and that moving to a system of qualified majority voting would help speed up the legislative process."

Did Full Fact mention this? Probably not;

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/eu-tax-policy-veto-scrap-european-commission-brexit-ireland-a8729396.html

EU Press Release;
europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-19-224_en.htm

Feb 2019; Parliament's European Scrutiny Committee is concerned over the implications for the UK - both in and out of the EU, during the transition period and under the backstop;

4EU tax policy:from national veto to Qualified Majority Voting

Committee’s assessment - Legally and politically important.

"in light of the UK’s imminent withdrawal from the EU, the eventual use of the passerelle cannot be ruled out if the other Member States can be persuaded of its merit.We consider that the introduction of QMV for some or all areas of EU tax policy would be potentially significant for the UK, even as a non-Member State."

publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmeuleg/301-liv/30107.htm

I do note this paragraph (if we stay in the EU, and before someone mentions it);

"It is inconceivable that a British Government of any political stripe would have consented to be stripped of its veto powers over EU tax legislation while the UK remained a Member State. Indeed, under section 6 of the European Union Act 2011, a Government could not legally have allowed the use of any of a passerelle clause to introduce QMV for EU taxation policy, except if it secured approval for such a decision by both Act of Parliament and by referendum."

approval, Act of Parliament, referendum - ha, ha, where have we heard those words before?

As for, "It is inconceivable - I note that the chair of this committee is Sir William (Bill) Cash, who said only a few days ago;

"It is unconstitutional, and it is inconceivable that we should be presented with a Bill that could be rammed through in one day."

The issue would seem to be that the powers that be don't know their own mind, whether leave, remain or abstain.

The issue would be that May charged ahead with her red lines with no cross party consensus, and as a result can’t get her plan through. In the meantime the country is becoming more divided and business is getting increasingly fucked off.

ContinuityError

I agree but it worth remembering that May turned down a cross party committee, not just that she went ahead without one.

Interestingly the TFEU also talks a lot about the relationship the EU is striving to have with its neighbours. Now this bit all sounds much more positive for us

BoneyBackJefferson
you have said that you consider brexiters racists

I can really engage anymore. I have explicitly stated several times this is not what I think. I have explained why - several times.

This reflects a worrying trend in the country despite being assured one thing people believing the opposite. The rise of conspiracy theories is part of this trend. One group assure and attempt to reassure and the other voice shouts "you did not say that" as the first group says exactly that.

I do not consider all Brexit supporters to be racist. I believe there are racist elements who take comfort from the Brexit vote.

Windowsareforcheaters

This reflects a worrying trend in the country despite being assured one thing people believing the opposite.

Yes, heaven forbid that anyone has a different opinion or thinks.

The rise of conspiracy theories is part of this trend.

Surely it more worrying that people feel the need to label those that do not agree with them.

One group assure and attempt to reassure and the other voice shouts "you did not say that" as the first group says exactly that.

In a world where people get paid a huge amount of money for talk, double talk and spin often with no quantifying evidence, IMO a dose of cynicism is quite healthy.

In the end the internet and all of its written communication is a sterile place with little or no ability to add a nuance to a word or sentence. You have no control over how someone reads your words, they do not know you, your bias or your influences and are left to put their own bias and influence in place.

I try not to be cynical as it is a very negative force.

Critically evaluating an argument is essential and is totally different than negative cynicism.

Yes, heaven forbid that anyone has a different opinion or thinks

I am all for opposition the key point is you oppose based on fact based evidence. I am a massive supporter of the concept of a loyal opposition. Not only do I think people should have opposing opinions (to me and others) I think it is vital for democracy.

Surely it more worrying that people feel the need to label those that do not agree with them

I am happy to label people who oppose issues which are fact based. Ideas like anti vaccination and climate change denial are damaging society, the political environment and the world.

often with no quantifying evidence

You make this point which is what I was saying. Conspiracy theorists often have no evidence at all and that is why they are dangerous.

I have no way of knowing how someone reads my words but when I say:
I do not consider all Brexit supporters to be racist. I believe there are racist elements who take comfort from the Brexit vote.
I don't think that is unclear.

"In a world where people get paid a huge amount of money for talk, double talk and spin often with no quantifying evidence, IMO a dose of cynicism is quite healthy."

Except when Nige Faridge, Fox News contributor, speaks. Or Boris. Then they speak truth and all good things and absolutely don't make any money out of the money making persona they have created.

I do not consider all Brexit supporters to be racist. I believe there are racist elements who take comfort from the Brexit vote.
I don't think that is unclear.

It is clear but it is has evolved from your original post.

I am happy to label people who oppose issues which are fact based. Ideas like anti vaccination and climate change denial are damaging society, the political environment and the world.

I would struggle to take a straightforward anti-vaccer or climate denier seriously in a debate (the latter is a bit more nuanced, but still).

It's troubling, however, when people put Brexiteers in the same category, because it necessarily equates double-blind clinical trials, for example, with economist predictions, who are social scientists with their own biases, having biased funding sources. In other words, it calls into question the persons understanding of hard vs soft sciences (see James O'Brien, LBC).

I'm not suggesting that this is what you're doing, just explaining how remain vs leave discussions can easily break down.

I didn't say anyone was racist if they support a cause with racists in it. My argument is that by supporting an issue like Brexit that has a lot of racists supporting it you are giving* comfort and succour to racism*

I don't think it has evolved at all.

I just made it easier to understand.

It has evolved from the "guilty by association" which is what you have previously posted.

If you associate with and by definition "give comfort and succour" to a particular group you are supporting it. If there are few loud voices specifically condemning the racists then it is not unreasonable to assume you support this group.

I have asked for specific condemnation of Yaxley-Lennon few leavers were willing to do this, although some did.

I was asked if I condemned racism in the Labour Party. I did vocally and clearly although I am not a member of this party.

Guilt by association is different from guilt if you live in the same postcode!

I have given long and short responses to the points you raise. You have refused to respond in any detail to posters on this thread Boney who have asked you questions.

It would be interesting to hear a Remainers view point on the TFEU and what this indicates about the direction of the EU. How they think the UK could remain a full member with the opt outs and QMV and how this would affect our ability to "change the EU from within". What they think of the social and justice cohesion. The clear declaration for a common defence policy. Can you see why so many are concerned about the very clear potential for a move toward a federalised EU (which is the very clear stated intention of a number of prominent EU politicians).

These are the type of issues which need addressing in any future debate. But seem to be repeatedly dodged by people on both sides repeating soundbites. We needed clear debate 3 years ago, instead we started off and continued mud slinging. If nothing else I think the tone has indicated exactly what politicians think of the voting public and assume that they no better than the stupid electorate who cannot be expected to bother their pretty little heads about complex issues so they will just make decisions on our behalf

know not no lol - maybe I am that thick