RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
The problem is that I think another referendum would be close, possibly to stay. All depending on the question of course.

Right now it wouldn’t surprise me though if a second referendum question that advocated hard Brexit got a majority.

hence saying why I don't think a referendum will resolve it. Plus, I don't think a 2nd ref will have no-deal on the paper.

Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

I still don't understand the likes of Francois grabbing defeat from the jaws of at least a partial win.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: hence saying why I don't think a referendum will resolve it. Plus, I don't think a 2nd ref will have no-deal on the paper.

Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

I still don't understand the likes of Francois grabbing defeat from the jaws of at least a partial win.

I know. Mental. He doesn’t come across as the sharpest, though, so maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.

Part of me thinks some of them would rather be seen to die in the trenches and fight a glorious resistance when they lose, than get 70/80% of what they want. Similar to the pure Corbynista’s, in some ways. In fact, I might use that comparison more often. It’ll drive both groups mad.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

I still don't understand the likes of Francois grabbing defeat from the jaws of at least a partial win.

I know. Mental. He doesn’t come across as the sharpest, though, so maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.

Part of me thinks some of them would rather be seen to die in the trenches and fight a glorious resistance when they lose, than get 70/80% of what they want. Similar to the pure Corbynista’s, in some ways. In fact, I might use that comparison more often. It’ll drive both groups mad.

He is dim, as are a lot of the gang of 34. Its a weird alliance voting against the WA when you think about it; for example, I'm pretty sure there are more Labour MPs like Mann who want to vote for the WA, but suspect its less about keeping the party line, than not being 'the one' who ensured we leave the EU.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: I still don't understand the likes of Francois grabbing defeat from the jaws of at least a partial win.

I know. Mental. He doesn’t come across as the sharpest, though, so maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.

Part of me thinks some of them would rather be seen to die in the trenches and fight a glorious resistance when they lose, than get 70/80% of what they want. Similar to the pure Corbynista’s, in some ways. In fact, I might use that comparison more often. It’ll drive both groups mad.

He is dim, as are a lot of the gang of 34. Its a weird alliance voting against the WA when you think about it; for example, I'm pretty sure there are more Labour MPs like Mann who want to vote for the WA, but suspect its less about keeping the party line, than not being 'the one' who ensured we leave the EU.

The WA is so close to Labour’s ‘official’ Brexit policy that party politics is the only thing stopping them from voting for it. The major difference is the end to freedom of movement but that would keep a lot of their traditional leave voters happy so.....well, who knows.

It’s an omnishambles from top to bottom, left to right and start to finish.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I know. Mental. He doesn’t come across as the sharpest, though, so maybe we shouldn’t be so surprised.

Part of me thinks some of them would rather be seen to die in the trenches and fight a glorious resistance when they lose, than get 70/80% of what they want. Similar to the pure Corbynista’s, in some ways. In fact, I might use that comparison more often. It’ll drive both groups mad.

He is dim, as are a lot of the gang of 34. Its a weird alliance voting against the WA when you think about it; for example, I'm pretty sure there are more Labour MPs like Mann who want to vote for the WA, but suspect its less about keeping the party line, than not being 'the one' who ensured we leave the EU.

The WA is so close to Labour’s ‘official’ Brexit policy that party politics is the only thing stopping them from voting for it. The major difference is the end to freedom of movement but that would keep a lot of their traditional leave voters happy so.....well, who knows.

It’s an omnishambles from top to bottom, left to right and start to finish.

Starmer said as much on the Beeb before the vote.

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: He is dim, as are a lot of the gang of 34. Its a weird alliance voting against the WA when you think about it; for example, I'm pretty sure there are more Labour MPs like Mann who want to vote for the WA, but suspect its less about keeping the party line, than not being 'the one' who ensured we leave the EU.

The WA is so close to Labour’s ‘official’ Brexit policy that party politics is the only thing stopping them from voting for it. The major difference is the end to freedom of movement but that would keep a lot of their traditional leave voters happy so.....well, who knows.

It’s an omnishambles from top to bottom, left to right and start to finish.

Starmer said as much on the Beeb before the vote.

Finally, some honesty. Not that it got us anywhere.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The WA is so close to Labour’s ‘official’ Brexit policy that party politics is the only thing stopping them from voting for it. The major difference is the end to freedom of movement but that would keep a lot of their traditional leave voters happy so.....well, who knows.

It’s an omnishambles from top to bottom, left to right and start to finish.

Starmer said as much on the Beeb before the vote.

Finally, some honesty. Not that it got us anywhere.

he wheedled on the political declaration being decoupled.

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
The problem is that I think another referendum would be close, possibly to stay. All depending on the question of course.

Right now it wouldn’t surprise me though if a second referendum question that advocated hard Brexit got a majority.

hence saying why I don't think a referendum will resolve it. Plus, I don't think a 2nd ref will have no-deal on the paper.

Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Banquo wrote: hence saying why I don't think a referendum will resolve it. Plus, I don't think a 2nd ref will have no-deal on the paper.

Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

Surely the point of a ref is to remove a block from Parliament...if the MPs can't make a decision, put it to the people. So the ref should be on the 3 choices.

I imagine a lot of people will be Remain as 1 and nothing as 2, or Leave as 1 and nothing as 2. The question is whether enough people will vote Remain to give a win after 1 round...

Mellsblue wrote: Do you you have any evidence for this?

As for Brexiteers compromising, I’ll stick to the line that they won so shouldn’t have to compromise. It was a binary referendum, after all.

Tbh, I was just talking about MPs (if you knew this, I’d love to see your evidence).

That it has become a fuck up is on Remainers as well as Brexiteers. I doubt both sides would have become as entrenched as they have if Remain MPs had worked constructively towards enacting the result of the referendum. We’d probably be serenely sailing towards Common Market 2.0 if they had. As it is, there has been a very obvious sense that a large number were looking to overturn the result from day 1.

of course not, that's why I said "I think"
Yes, the referendum was binary for in or out of the EU, it was anything but binary on what form of leave was voted for, it literally covered everything from Norway++ through to No Deal. I have plenty of proof that the No Deal Brexiteers haven't budged an inch.
I was talking about both MPs and the publication large. The only MPs I'm aware of who were remain and were never willing to give leave a chance were the Lib Dems who stood on a manifesto of exactly that. Have you any proof of any others who were always unwilling to compromise?
Bollocks has it. This fuckhp is entirely on May's head, ably helped by the Tory party, and crosses both sides of the leave/remain divide.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Yep. No way this would be allowed. I think we’re heading for double whammy of a second ref with Remain and whatever the MPs decide on next week on the ballot paper, with the possibility the WA will be on there as well (not that I can see the need, Common Mrkt 2.0 is WA lite). That will drive the Brexiteers mental (rightly) and we’ll still have to go through the hell of another ref.

If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

I'd say the only reason to have a second ref is to get an actual decision out of "The Will Of The People" (TM) rather than arguing about what it means. It seems pointless to do it if one of the popular options isn't on there.

Puja

The 'people' fckd up a very simple binary question , how on earth would they cope with three options, and a transfer vote. I'm not joking, much.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Do you you have any evidence for this?

As for Brexiteers compromising, I’ll stick to the line that they won so shouldn’t have to compromise. It was a binary referendum, after all.

Tbh, I was just talking about MPs (if you knew this, I’d love to see your evidence).

That it has become a fuck up is on Remainers as well as Brexiteers. I doubt both sides would have become as entrenched as they have if Remain MPs had worked constructively towards enacting the result of the referendum. We’d probably be serenely sailing towards Common Market 2.0 if they had. As it is, there has been a very obvious sense that a large number were looking to overturn the result from day 1.

of course not, that's why I said "I think"
Yes, the referendum was binary for in or out of the EU, it was anything but binary on what form of leave was voted for, it literally covered everything from Norway++ through to No Deal. I have plenty of proof that the No Deal Brexiteers haven't budged an inch.
I was talking about both MPs and the publication large. The only MPs I'm aware of who were remain and were never willing to give leave a chance were the Lib Dems who stood on a manifesto of exactly that. Have you any proof of any others who were always unwilling to compromise?
Bollocks has it. This fuckhp is entirely on May's head, ably helped by the Tory party, and crosses both sides of the leave/remain divide.

The leave campaign was clearly based on an end to free movement, no EUCJ and the ability to strike trade deals. That points to a very clear version of Brexit to me, not that I agree with it.
If you think this fuck up is entirely on May and the Tory party then you don’t follow politics closely enough or fully understand it, and/or you’re wilfully blind because you agree with the Remainers.
I’d agree the some Brexiteers haven’t budged and inch but I’d also point to plenty of Remainers that haven’t budged an inch. As I’ve says from the start, very few people have come out of this well.
If you think only Lib Dem MPs haven’t been willing to give Brexit a chance then I’ll refer you back to the bit about you not following politics closely enough.

Stom wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

Surely the point of a ref is to remove a block from Parliament...if the MPs can't make a decision, put it to the people. So the ref should be on the 3 choices.

I imagine a lot of people will be Remain as 1 and nothing as 2, or Leave as 1 and nothing as 2. The question is whether enough people will vote Remain to give a win after 1 round...

Why is there a block? I’d suggest that a good deal of it is to get us back to a second referendum to try to overturn the first.
Just look at which option received the most ‘yes’ votes in the indicative vote debacle.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
If we're going to do a second ref, then it surely has to be a preference one with Remain, Withdrawal Agreement, and No Deal on there. That way we can actually see if "The Will Of The People" (TM) can get a majority for one of those on first and second choice votes.

Puja

I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

I'd say the only reason to have a second ref is to get an actual decision out of "The Will Of The People" (TM) rather than arguing about what it means. It seems pointless to do it if one of the popular options isn't on there.

Puja

Cool. Let’s have a second ref solely on which form of Brexit the country wants......

Mellsblue wrote: The leave campaign was clearly based on an end to free movement, no EUCJ and the ability to strike trade deals. That points to a very clear version of Brexit to me, not that I agree with it.
If you think this fuck up is entirely on May and the Tory party then you don’t follow politics closely enough or fully understand it, and/or you’re wilfully blind because you agree with the Remainers.
I’d agree the some Brexiteers haven’t budged and inch but I’d also point to plenty of Remainers that haven’t budged an inch. As I’ve says from the start, very few people have come out of this well.
If you think only Lib Dem MPs haven’t been willing to give Brexit a chance then I’ll refer you back to the bit about you not following politics closely enough.

Campaign? yes, ballot? No
To you maybe, to the other 33.5m voters... Less so
Well, that's charming. Complete bullshit of course. You having an opinion ion does NOT mean that anyone having an different opinion doesn't known what they're talking about.
Beyond that, you're just doubling down on being an arsehole by being a bigger arsehole.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: The leave campaign was clearly based on an end to free movement, no EUCJ and the ability to strike trade deals. That points to a very clear version of Brexit to me, not that I agree with it.
If you think this fuck up is entirely on May and the Tory party then you don’t follow politics closely enough or fully understand it, and/or you’re wilfully blind because you agree with the Remainers.
I’d agree the some Brexiteers haven’t budged and inch but I’d also point to plenty of Remainers that haven’t budged an inch. As I’ve says from the start, very few people have come out of this well.
If you think only Lib Dem MPs haven’t been willing to give Brexit a chance then I’ll refer you back to the bit about you not following politics closely enough.

Campaign? yes, ballot? No
To you maybe, to the other 33.5m voters... Less so
Well, that's charming. Complete bullshit of course. You having an opinion ion does NOT mean that anyone having an different opinion doesn't known what they're talking about.
Beyond that, you're just doubling down on being an arsehole by being a bigger arsehole.

There is only the name of the candidate and their party on the ballot of a GE but I assume everyone knows the platform behind the name and party. No different with the referendum. You can't accept that Leave campaigned on those three planks and in the next sentence then claim it's not clear what platform they campained on.
If you honestly think this is solely May and the govts fault then you don't understand how our parliament works. If you think it's solely Lib Dem MPs who have refused to accept the result then you can call me whatever you like but you are refusing to acknowledge that all the SNP, Plaid and Green MPs haven't accepted the result, and that's as obvious as is possible. To them you can add the numerous Labour and Conservative MPs who, from day 1, have refused to accept the result - have a look at the origins of the People's Vote movement and the Independent Group/Change UK and tell me it was just the Lib Dems.

Mellsblue wrote: There is only the name of the candidate and their party on the ballot of a GE but I assume everyone knows the platform behind the name and party. No different with the referendum. You can't accept that Leave campaigned on those three planks and in the next sentence then claim it's not clear what platform they campained on.
If you honestly think this is solely May and the govts fault then you don't understand how our parliament works. If you think it's solely Lib Dem MPs who have refused to accept the result then you can call me whatever you like but you are refusing to acknowledge that all the SNP, Plaid and Green MPs haven't accepted the result, and that's as obvious as is possible. To them you can add the numerous Labour and Conservative MPs who, from day 1, have refused to accept the result - have a look at the origins of the People's Vote movement and the Independent Group/Change UK and tell me it was just the Lib Dems.

The GE was largely fought on issues other than Brexit, it was also fought at a time when most remainers had accepted the result of the referendum, and thus were voting on other issues.
The referendum didn't include candidate or party names at all, and was a single-issue vote.
Show members I haven't accepted that leave campaigned for a hard Brexit? Now show me where they didn't also campaign on a soft Brexit. Leave were absolutely trying to be all things to all people whom were disaffected with the EU, and picked up votes across the whole range of people, from those who were registering a protest about being asked the question, through those who wanted a Norway-style departure, to those who wanted to crash and burn.
What you're doing is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. "You lost get over it" or hell, even "you won, now you have to kowtow to my demands because I'm more extreme that you".
Quite frankly, you can fuck off with that attitude. That unwillingness to see other people's opinions as even being genuinely held, let alone valid, or as valid as your own.

Like May you are refusing to discuss this in good faith. Consequently you have lost any faith I had in discussing this with you, but feel free to have the last word anyway.

On the political party thing - I was talking about parties represented across Britain, not the nationalists; and no-one gives a damn about the Greens. Remain Tories and labour, and now-TIG were okay accepting the result of the referendum. They're not now because of the attitudes you're parroting, and because of 3 years of bad governing.
Please note, there's a difference between "accepting the result" and "full-heartedly embracing the result" not that you'll see it.

Farewell.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: I doubt parliament will allow no deal on to the ballot paper. The only reason to have a second ref is to try to overturn the first, not to enable a hard Brexit.

I'd say the only reason to have a second ref is to get an actual decision out of "The Will Of The People" (TM) rather than arguing about what it means. It seems pointless to do it if one of the popular options isn't on there.

Puja

Cool. Let’s have a second ref solely on which form of Brexit the country wants......

Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

Thinking a little more about it - yes, I can prove that "not that many" remain MPs accepted the result of the referrendum (though I grant, I should have included the nationalist parties as well as the lib dems stuck to their line, albeit possibly for differing reasons)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
So that's 1 out of 317 tories, and 47 out of 262 labour MPs who refused to accept the results.

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:
I'd say the only reason to have a second ref is to get an actual decision out of "The Will Of The People" (TM) rather than arguing about what it means. It seems pointless to do it if one of the popular options isn't on there.

Puja

Cool. Let’s have a second ref solely on which form of Brexit the country wants......

Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

When you're starting to market a new product or service, you generally survey people for their opinions. This takes 2 things.

1. Your question is written is such a way to get the most useful answers.
2. You interpret what they say with a degree of aptitude.

The leave referendum failed on both these counts.

The question was open to interpretation and did not allow anyone to offer a differing view on a complex subject.

And then when the result came in, there was no attempt to understand why the answers were as they were. Instead, it was taken as an absolute. Which has caused many, many issues. Because, well, if you look deep into the reasons why people voted to leave, they didn't vote because they want an end to free movement, or they want to be able to make our own laws and not "bow down" to the EU.

Many, many people voted to leave because they're scared. And why are they scared? Could it be that they are sitting there making less money than they have for decades, their adult children are still dependent on them because there are no jobs, stretching their budgets further, the prices of everything is higher, they are suffering with health problems (don't we all as we get older), yet the health service is catering for them less and less, with longer waiting times and the inability to take multiple problems to the GP. Their community is smaller than ever before as people become more insular thanks to the internet and their lack, or perceived lack, of the means to go out and enjoy life.

In other words, the referendum was a complete rejection of the political and economic system that has taken hold in Britain since Thatcher (even if she didn't intend this, she was the catalyst in the UK).

Now, I cannot blame the government for failing to address this. After all, they can't paint themselves as the bad guys as much as they preside over the quickest and deepest descent into inequality around... (4m children in relative poverty, ffs!)

But I can blame the opposition, and by the opposition I mean all the fuckers, not just Labour, for their absolute failure to address these issues. To take a stand and say: You have been royally fucked over. We want to bring back a living wage, we want to create jobs and ...

Instead, Labour talk about theory (because they have bloody theorists in charge again), and the Lib Dems talk about nothing at all, because they all seem to be a bunch of old men. The SNP talk about many good things, but then drown it all out with their own bloody referendum. But you can't really blame them: they see their responsibility sitting with the people of Scotland, not the Union.

So yeah, we can say that the referendum failed to give a result. Because no one actually interpreted the bloody thing.

Which Tyler wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: There is only the name of the candidate and their party on the ballot of a GE but I assume everyone knows the platform behind the name and party. No different with the referendum. You can't accept that Leave campaigned on those three planks and in the next sentence then claim it's not clear what platform they campained on.
If you honestly think this is solely May and the govts fault then you don't understand how our parliament works. If you think it's solely Lib Dem MPs who have refused to accept the result then you can call me whatever you like but you are refusing to acknowledge that all the SNP, Plaid and Green MPs haven't accepted the result, and that's as obvious as is possible. To them you can add the numerous Labour and Conservative MPs who, from day 1, have refused to accept the result - have a look at the origins of the People's Vote movement and the Independent Group/Change UK and tell me it was just the Lib Dems.

The GE was largely fought on issues other than Brexit, it was also fought at a time when most remainers had accepted the result of the referendum, and thus were voting on other issues.
The referendum didn't include candidate or party names at all, and was a single-issue vote.
Show members I haven't accepted that leave campaigned for a hard Brexit? Now show me where they didn't also campaign on a soft Brexit. Leave were absolutely trying to be all things to all people whom were disaffected with the EU, and picked up votes across the whole range of people, from those who were registering a protest about being asked the question, through those who wanted a Norway-style departure, to those who wanted to crash and burn.
What you're doing is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. "You lost get over it" or hell, even "you won, now you have to kowtow to my demands because I'm more extreme that you".
Quite frankly, you can fuck off with that attitude. That unwillingness to see other people's opinions as even being genuinely held, let alone valid, or as valid as your own.

Like May you are refusing to discuss this in good faith. Consequently you have lost any faith I had in discussing this with you, but feel free to have the last word anyway.

On the political party thing - I was talking about parties represented across Britain, not the nationalists; and no-one gives a damn about the Greens. Remain Tories and labour, and now-TIG were okay accepting the result of the referendum. They're not now because of the attitudes you're parroting, and because of 3 years of bad governing.
Please note, there's a difference between "accepting the result" and "full-heartedly embracing the result" not that you'll see it.

Farewell.

My point about the GE is that the ballot paper doesn’t set out a party or candidates position, as with the referendum, but people going into that booth know what they are voting for based on the campaign. The same is true for the ref.

I’m not doing anything. I don’t agree with the ERG and voted Remain, I’m just pointing out that your attempt to solely blame May and her govt shows a lack of understanding of how our political system works.

I'll happily accept that I think the winning side shouldn’t have to compromise, mainly because they won. Again, I don’t back the ERG and they don’t represent Brexiteers at large. What they do represent is how those on both fringes have become more entrenched as we’ve gone along.

I am discussing on good faith, I’m just using both eyes when discussing.

The nationalists are MPs in our parliament, you can’t just not include them. If you’ve decided not to, it’s best to make that clear.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Cool. Let’s have a second ref solely on which form of Brexit the country wants......

Which would also be removing one of the popular options. There's absolutely no point in doing it if it leaves a major grouping crying that they weren't represented.

Puja

So you accept it’s an attempt to overturn the first referendum.

You cannot overturn advice...