Anyone else feel uncomfortable with the idea of a second referendum, given the first?

[MuseumofInnocence]

Apologies, as I'm sure this has been done elsewhere.

I've been thinking a lot about the role of parliamentary sovereignty and how it differs from direct democracy. I was listening to Michael Heseltine again who gave a great speech at the March yesterday. He talks a lot about Parliament and how it is the foundations of our freedom, MPs do a great job, commit great service and so on. And then he concludes that "we the people, must be given the final say". I am a remainer and therefore sympathetic to this view, but given how the first went, and the argument for representative democracy, am I being a bit intellectually dishonest if I go down this road? If MPs were able to fulfil their duty, they would see that Brexit was not in the interests of the UK, and revoke Article 50?

Opps sorry

Should have said demanding evidence while not providing any of their own

This is correct, but where on the ballot paper did it say

“Only chosen leave if you are prepared to accept a no deal leave”

Either I'm not following closely enough or you're now arguing against yourself.

Should have said demanding evidence while not providing any of their own

If a loser thinks the person who beat them is guilty of cheating or the winner was coerced into making a decision that resulted in them being a member of the winning team then the burden of proof is upon the person or persons that are making the accusations. The person who is being accused is under no obligation to prove their innocence.

Maybe someone from legal would like to comment on that?

{Correct. So let's leave with no deal. At least that way UK government can say they actually delivered Brexit.}

This can only be a wind up.
There is NO PLAN that will keep the UK population fed for more than a few weeks that will stand up to any real scrutiny for a 'crash out' scenario. Trade deals to get the quantities required will take many months of negotiations, and so far it is Liam the Wherrity sniffer who has taken almost sole command and his activities are being kept quiet.
Leavers are concerned about lack of democracy if the UK does not leave. Maybe they need to research the powers that the government has been quietly taking control of in the last few months. Ministers overriding established government departments, the commencement of 'operation yellowhammer', these are the governmental actions removing democracy and taking total control.

If we don't have another referendum we will be regretting it for many, many years to come. Even leave voters will be saying "why didn't the remainers press harder for another vote?"

Is PizzaCafe2016 one of the old cretins or a fresh one?
I am fully entitled to declare that I think he/she /it is a complete twat.
Just saying!

pizza

You have said stuff about posters on the threads

When asked to confirm the details youve ignored

Nothing to do with winners or losers

Pizza is def one of the original "leavers" the style is just sooooo similar.

Labours Barry Gardner has said Labour is NOT a party of Remain..... unbelievable! nor would support a 2nd referendum.

Fanfuckintastic Barry, Labour enabling a Tory brexit, the realistic alternatives to a PV is No-deal OR Mays deal.

To LeClerc

Suggest you go through all the episodes of Question Time since the 2016 referendum. Nobody on the panel has stated that a no deal scenario will result in UK disappearing off the map and 67 million will starve to death within a few months of leaving the EU without a deal.

Several have stated that UK could manage on WTO terms. Energy minister Clare Perry who is very anti no deal Brexit said it confidently on question time.

The neutral members of the panel generally agree that a no deal will result in big disruption, but none have ever said UK will vanish and 67 million will starve.

Remember the entire world went through a depression in the 1930s and went on to prosper. World went through two world wars and went on to prosper.

Both Germany and Japan were wiped out in WWII, but went on to prosper. Maybe that was because they were forced to start again as opposed to do things the way there were always done before?

Closer to home take a look at Republic of Ireland. During the potato famine of 1845 to 1849 over a million starved to death and another million emigrated. Even now 170 years later the population has not recovered to whatis was before the famine. But look at the numbers. ROI GDP per capita is way higher than the UK. After all the centuries of being looked down upon and being the butt of the Englishman, Scotsman and Irishman jokes they are probably laughing.

o deal scenario will result in UK disappearing off the map and 67 million will starve to death within a few months of leaving the EU without a deal

Lucky no one here has said that then

That would have been very silly

PizzaCafe2016
Yet more random bollocks that are nothing to do with the situation of Brexit.
And I don't have a television.
The UK 'imports' about 10% of it's electricity from France, while most of NI electricity comes from Ireland. This could be a serious problem for which the plan about a year ago was to have the Army with generators on ships to keep the lights on.

And I don't have a television

Well if you are posting on MN you must have internet access. So why not look on YouTube for question time episodes. They are uploaded within hours.

{Well if you are posting on MN you must have internet access. So why not look on YouTube for question time episodes. They are uploaded within hours.}

Why would I bother doing that when I have a brain I can use to do better things with rather than the QT 'game show'.

Pizza do you strive to 'manage' in life, or to thrive?

I am gobsmacked at the callousness of PizzaCafe2016 saying that "world went through a depression in the 30s and went on to prosper" and that it went through 2 world wars and went on to prosper

Tell that to the people who suffered and died during the Great Depression. But then, they're dead so that they couldn't "prosper" __ http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/dispp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3434 - a short summary for those who might be too ignorant.

Tell that to the young men who died in the trenches in WW1 . But then, they're dead so that they couldn't "prosper". (I'm presuming no-one is that ignorant that they need links about WW1)

Tell that to the 6 million Jews (and the other "undesirables") who died in the Holocaust But then, they're dead, so that they couldn't "prosper"

Tell that to the UK residents who died in the Blitz But then they're dead, so they couldn't "prosper".

Tell that to those who survived but who were left traumatised and/or who lost everything.

Brexit is not the equivalent. It is not character forming It is self-inflicted damage.

So if you genuinely see parallels, then own the fact that there will be damage, there will be real suffering, there will be pain, and there will (in the event of No Deal), be avoidable deaths (admitted by the England's own Secretary of State for Health)

And I'm sure that PizzaCafe2016 knows which country got the most Marshall Aid, so that they could invest and rebuild after WW2?

And I'm sure that PizzaCafe2016 knows which country got the most Marshall Aid, so that they could invest and rebuild after WW2

And what did UK do with the money- played follow the leader in more wars alongside USA!

If a loser thinks the person who beat them is guilty of cheating or the winner was coerced into making a decision that resulted in them being a member of the winning team then the burden of proof is upon the person or persons that are making the accusations.

In this case, the substantial fraud and electoral misconduct on the Leaver side has been found by independent adjudicators to have been proved. Why do you keep ignoring that fact, PizzaCafe2016?

In this case, the substantial fraud and electoral misconduct on the Leaver side has been found by independent adjudicators to have been proved

So why was article 50 started is my question? If the evidence was discovered after article 50 was started why can it not be revoked on the basis of misrepresentation?

Because it was only an advisory referendum. No legal action was taken as the referendum wasn't legally binding.

{Why do you keep ignoring that fact, PizzaCafe2016?}

PizzaCafe2016 is just a 'useful idiot', popping up to throw random sentences together just to be annoying and having no real intelligence or decency of it's own is less useful than a pot plant.

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

Bear in mind that the really rich ones want to stay that way, so that avoiding anti-tax avoidance measures sounds very attractive to them. They are also not too worried about short term adjustments as they keep out of the way til it all settles down again.

And don't care too much about reducing employment protections and other things that cost them money.

WA delivers most of the benefits of EU membership sans FoM.

Well, it does at the moment but without any chance for us to influence future policies, our deal will just e worse value for us over time.

Imagine the free trade talks with Japan. There may have been a moment when it was recognised that this would mean no more big investment in car factories from japan and eventually the closure of those factories. Did they say, oh, wait s moment, who in the E.U. will have the most to loose, we must build in something to ensure a phase withdrawing to help them find different investments. Look round room, oh, yes, tbd UK. Okey, lets sign this deal as it is. Snigger

Just to repeat: the electoral commission can't rule the Referendum nul and void because it was only an advisory referendum.