Boaty McBoatface and the second referendum? - HotUKDeals
We use cookie files to improve site functionality and personalisation. By continuing to use HotUKDeals, you accept our cookie and privacy policy.
Get the HotUKDeals app free at Google Play

Search Error

An error occurred when searching, please try again!

Login / Sign UpSubmit

Boaty McBoatface and the second referendum?

£0.00 @
Ask people for their opinion and then ignore it or go for glory wasting millions of taxpayers money hoping the people will back you in changing the face of history? What do you guys think? Read More
sowotsdis Avatar
3m, 2w agoPosted 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Ask people for their opinion and then ignore it or go for glory wasting millions of taxpayers money hoping the people will back you in changing the face of history?
What do you guys think?
sowotsdis Avatar
3m, 2w agoPosted 3 months, 2 weeks ago
Options

Top Responses

(1)
Again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post...) - I did not in anyway suggest that only 'those in meritocracy should be able to vote'. I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.


Oh dear...... What you are describing IS a meritocracy. It may be a word that you didn't specifically use so it is a word put into your mouth literally. However, please look up the meaning of the words meritocracy and democracy.

you are arguing on subjects that you don't seem to actually understand properly. may I recommend that you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

it really is quite ironic that your post #21 accuses another poster of inadequate understanding of the subject when that actually applies to yourself.

however, until you understand the subject matter adequately there is little point in discussion.

All Responses

(52) Jump to unreadPost an answer
Responses/page:
Page:
#1
An opinion is exactly that. I often ask people for their opinion in my workplace - doesn't mean we always go with the majority decision. Not everybody is an expert in everything, for example I would take less notice of a salesperson's view on our IT Security than I would the Head of IT.

An opinion should be listened to, but it doesn't necessarily have to be actioned if it's not for the benefit of the majority.

I voted in the recent referendum (and it was exactly that...) and whilst my vote is worth the same as everybody elses to say I have the same understanding of somebody in a relevant field on euro politics etc. is ludicrous. That's the problem with democracy...

Edited By: ipswich78 on Mar 13, 2017 14:18
#2
You can't have a do over when the outcome isn't the one you wanted. This is what happens when you ban egg and spoon races - when everyone wins no one knows how to lose,
#3
Freedom ya ********

Edited By: andywedge on Mar 13, 2017 20:50: swearing
#4
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
#5
maybe a solution is each person signs up to what they want say a card is then issued and u need produce it everytime then have both options those who support a Brexit get the benefits of it and those that don't and vice versa. e.g. if prices go up due to Brexit or drop they pay the new prices and those that don't want it keep paying same prices would be quite be difficult to manage but maybe possible. so stuff like NHS being private for those who want it and not for those that don't etc etc.
#6
What price did you all get for Brexit? I got 12/1 - had a double with Brexit & Vardy getting SPotY but he f***ed it the coke head
#7
rehydrated
Freedom ya ********!

And we all know what happened to a bloke that shouted freedom

Edited By: andywedge on Mar 13, 2017 20:50: swearing
#8
sowotsdis
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
A referendum isn't a guarantee that a law or change will be passed. It's purely to find out the opinion of the 'people'. Parliament exists to then decide if changes should be made.
#9
ipswich78
sowotsdis
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
A referendum isn't a guarantee that a law or change will be passed. It's purely to find out the opinion of the 'people'. Parliament exists to then decide if changes should be made.
That principle of parliamentary sovereignty hype
#10
Personally i think referendums should be a more regular occurrence, not the way they do it now with massive campaigns. Have say 2 weeks a year (if needed at all), get the few key issues, have all the shows and opinions at the end of the two weeks we all vote, done.

Watch all the "security" and anti privacy laws get voted down. Infact issues like that should always go to vote.
#11
ipswich78
sowotsdis
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
A referendum isn't a guarantee that a law or change will be passed. It's purely to find out the opinion of the 'people'. Parliament exists to then decide if changes should be made.

That's true, however that wasn't what was presented to the people. Politicians from both sides ramped up the stakes to make it virtually impossible for the result (whichever way it was going to go) to not be binding. It was "out means out" versus "be part of Europe forever", not "let us know what you think and we'll take that in mind while we try to get the best deal", which is a shame. My feeling is that the powers-that-be were so certain that In would win, that they encouraged this in the hope of killing off any chance of leaving forever.

What I absolutely can't stand though is when newspapers start saying "Coup this" and "Coup that" (e.g. with the Labour leadership). It's not a coup, that's exactly how our democracy is meant to work.

Edited By: Muir on Mar 13, 2017 14:50
#12
ipswich78
An opinion is exactly that. I often ask people for their opinion in my workplace - doesn't mean we always go with the majority decision. Not everybody is an expert in everything, for example I would take less notice of a salesperson's view on our IT Security than I would the Head of IT.
An opinion should be listened to, but it doesn't necessarily have to be actioned if it's not for the benefit of the majority.
I voted in the recent referendum (and it was exactly that...) and whilst my vote is worth the same as everybody elses to say I have the same understanding of somebody in a relevant field on euro politics etc. is ludicrous. That's the problem with democracy...
So all them Euro experts new that the euro was the best thing since sliced salami,as Manuel would say " they know nothing".
Big business and not so big love all this cheap labour, happily forgetting that with mass imigration housing NHS etc reach a tipping point with no control,no slow absorbtion that happened when there was 10,000's .
#13
Muir
ipswich78
sowotsdis
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
A referendum isn't a guarantee that a law or change will be passed. It's purely to find out the opinion of the 'people'. Parliament exists to then decide if changes should be made.
That's true, however that wasn't what was presented to the people. Politicians from both sides ramped up the stakes to make it virtually impossible for the result (whichever way it was going to go) to not be binding. It was "out means out" versus "be part of Europe forever", not "let us know what you think and we'll take that in mind while we try to get the best deal", which is a shame. My feeling is that the powers-that-be were so certain that In would win, that they encouraged this in the hope of killing off any chance of leaving forever.
What I absolutely can't stand though is when newspapers start saying "Coup this" and "Coup that" (e.g. with the Labour leadership). It's not a coup, that's exactly how our democracy is meant to work.

I think you're right. Part of the reason the remain camp lost is the confidence (borderline arrogance) that they would easily win.

Whether you like him or not Farrage and his clique played a blinder, they found a sore point for a lot of the people within Britain and pushed it to the limits to convince those on the fence to vote leave.

Unfortunately there were many, many issues around being in or out of Europe that got overlooked and for many people it purely came down to immigration.

Many years ago I was a little Englander. I grew up in a small village - as you can imagine 100% white (and English), in fact most of my childhood was spent in this type of environment. As I grew up my views on 'immigrants' were not that great, partly fed by many aspects of the media and other 'locals'.

As I got older, and broadened my horizons including working and being exposed to many positive aspects around immigration my views were totally changed.

Edited By: ipswich78 on Mar 13, 2017 15:06
#14
ipswich78
Muir
ipswich78
sowotsdis
But aren't politician elected to implement the will of the people and the same of polls to name a boat?
A referendum isn't a guarantee that a law or change will be passed. It's purely to find out the opinion of the 'people'. Parliament exists to then decide if changes should be made.
That's true, however that wasn't what was presented to the people. Politicians from both sides ramped up the stakes to make it virtually impossible for the result (whichever way it was going to go) to not be binding. It was "out means out" versus "be part of Europe forever", not "let us know what you think and we'll take that in mind while we try to get the best deal", which is a shame. My feeling is that the powers-that-be were so certain that In would win, that they encouraged this in the hope of killing off any chance of leaving forever.
What I absolutely can't stand though is when newspapers start saying "Coup this" and "Coup that" (e.g. with the Labour leadership). It's not a coup, that's exactly how our democracy is meant to work.

I think you're right. Part of the reason the remain camp lost is the confidence (borderline arrogance) that they would easily win.

Whether you like him or not Farrage and his clique played a blinder, they found a sore point for a lot of the people within Britain and pushed it to the limits to convince those on the fence to vote leave.

Unfortunately there were many, many issues around being in or out of Europe that got overlooked and for many people it purely came down to immigration.

Many years ago I was a little Englander. I grew up in a small village - as you can imagine 100% white (and English), in fact most of my childhood was spent in this type of environment. As I grew up my views on 'immigrants' were not that great, partly fed by many aspects of the media and other 'locals'.

As I got older, and broadened my horizons including working and being exposed to many positive aspects around immigration my views were totally changed.


I agree, and rather than focusing on the big points of staying in Europe, the remain constantly tried to discredit and throw digs at farage. He's racist bla bla. In the end I think it just got boring.

Looking back I can't really remember a meaningful statement the remain camp said, it was all ifs and buts.

Edited By: rhysccfc31 on Mar 13, 2017 15:13: Spelling
#15
How about a referendum to decide if we want the Scottish to remain in Great Britain?
#16
juliew007
How about a referendum to decide if we want the Scottish to remain in Great Britain?


I am with you on that it's the only sure way that they would get their independence if the rest of the uk got to vote on it
#17
The referendum was never designed to be legally binding, rushing a head without a plan for something which will affected generations based on a 4% majority (with nearly a 1/3rd of eligible voters not voting) is plain stupid.

Acknowledge there is a lot of people feeling unheard and **** on within the country, address the issues raised (most if not all of them are either nothing to do with the EU or can be fixed without leaving the EU) and then if public opinion hasn't changed within 12 to 24 months (giving the changes time to take effect) have another vote.
This time legally binding and mandatory for every eligible voter (it will affect everyone so everyone should vote).

Right now there is no real plan, the United Kingdom is looking like they are going to split up (can't blame NI and Scotland), none of the underlaying issues have been addressed in anyway and the pound is taking a beating.
When/If we leave the people getting the worst deal will be the poor and working classes at least for the foreseeable future.

It's ironic that a deal website is so pro leave when it's going to increase the price of goods and services (like it currently is with the poor pound) and lead to less funding and public spending for free activities and schemes.
#18
joedastudd
The referendum was never designed to be legally binding, rushing a head without a plan for something which will affected generations based on a 4% majority (with nearly a 1/3rd of eligible voters not voting) is plain stupid.
Acknowledge there is a lot of people feeling unheard and **** on within the country, address the issues raised (most if not all of them are either nothing to do with the EU or can be fixed without leaving the EU) and then if public opinion hasn't changed within 12 to 24 months (giving the changes time to take effect) have another vote.
This time legally binding and mandatory for every eligible voter (it will affect everyone so everyone should vote).
Right now there is no real plan, the United Kingdom is looking like they are going to split up (can't blame NI and Scotland), none of the underlaying issues have been addressed in anyway and the pound is taking a beating.
When/If we leave the people getting the worst deal will be the poor and working classes at least for the foreseeable future.
It's ironic that a deal website is so pro leave when it's going to increase the price of goods and services (like it currently is with the poor pound) and lead to less funding and public spending for free activities and schemes.
How is this website so pro leave it might be that the remainers just dont bother responding to threads like these
#19
joedastudd

It's ironic that a deal website is so pro leave when it's going to increase the price of goods and services (like it currently is with the poor pound) and lead to less funding and public spending for free activities and schemes.

Fully agree with you. It shows that a lot of people firstly didn't really understand what they were voting for and also the implications thereof.

It sounds ridiculously archaic I know, but does democracy really work? How can somebody be allowed to vote on something they know nothing about (note 'know' not have an opinion of...).

I think there should be a test and the results of which should dictate what areas you can / can't vote on based on a referendum basis.
#20
don't understand the issues?
don 't be patronising!
qualifying test ?
Do you understand what the word democracy means?
#21
sowotsdis
don't understand the issues?
don 't be patronising!
qualifying test ?
Do you understand what the word democracy means?
It's not patronising at all. And you clearly didn't take the time to my comment fully (or maybe you didn't understand it?) - "but does democracy really work?"
#22
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C60HXs_W0AEOjLU.jpg
#23
ipswich78
sowotsdis
don't understand the issues?
don 't be patronising!
qualifying test ?
Do you understand what the word democracy means?
It's not patronising at all. And you clearly didn't take the time to my comment fully (or maybe you didn't understand it?) - "but does democracy really work?"

How terribly patronising of you. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand what you said

You seem to hold the opinion that your opinion and that of others that agree with you is somehow more valid than people that disagree with you.

your suggestion that only those in a meritocracy should be able to vote is laughable. firstly how could you possibly define the 'merit' ? should we decree that only those with a masters or higher is educated enough to understand the issues ? or how about only people with £1M in the bank or 20 staff working for them or any other pretty random selection criteria.

Personally I agree with Voltaire and even more with “― Oscar Wilde "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”

In that light by all means continue posting :)
#24
joedastudd
The referendum was never designed to be legally binding, rushing a head without a plan for something which will affected generations based on a 4% majority (with nearly a 1/3rd of eligible voters not voting) is plain stupid.

Acknowledge there is a lot of people feeling unheard and **** on within the country, address the issues raised (most if not all of them are either nothing to do with the EU or can be fixed without leaving the EU) and then if public opinion hasn't changed within 12 to 24 months (giving the changes time to take effect) have another vote.
This time legally binding and mandatory for every eligible voter (it will affect everyone so everyone should vote).

Right now there is no real plan, the United Kingdom is looking like they are going to split up (can't blame NI and Scotland), none of the underlaying issues have been addressed in anyway and the pound is taking a beating.
When/If we leave the people getting the worst deal will be the poor and working classes at least for the foreseeable future.

It's ironic that a deal website is so pro leave when it's going to increase the price of goods and services (like it currently is with the poor pound) and lead to less funding and public spending for free activities and schemes.


It's nice to have your comments as such a knowledgeable poster of the inner workings of our government. Just one little question tho... how do you know that there isn't a plan and what is going to happen in the future ?
#25
jonnithomas
ipswich78
sowotsdis
don't understand the issues?
don 't be patronising!
qualifying test ?
Do you understand what the word democracy means?
It's not patronising at all. And you clearly didn't take the time to my comment fully (or maybe you didn't understand it?) - "but does democracy really work?"
How terribly patronising of you. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand what you said
You seem to hold the opinion that your opinion and that of others that agree with you is somehow more valid than people that disagree with you.
your suggestion that only those in a meritocracy should be able to vote is laughable. firstly how could you possibly define the 'merit' ? should we decree that only those with a masters or higher is educated enough to understand the issues ? or how about only people with £1M in the bank or 20 staff working for them or any other pretty random selection criteria.
Personally I agree with Voltaire and even more with “― Oscar Wilde "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
In that light by all means continue posting :)
It was slightly patronising but that was based on the poster questioning something I hadn't even written. And to do so, shows that they either didn't actually read my post or didn't understand it.

My opinion is indeed more valid than others, but then there are other people who have a much more valid opinion than me on the matter. That's life and applies to many things. An opinion is exactly that, and just because somebody has one doesn't mean you have to respect it if their opinion is based on incorrect facts.

Again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post...) - I did not in anyway suggest that only 'those in meritocracy should be able to vote'. I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.

But how can that be a bad thing? Why should people with no understanding and not willing to spend some time to learn about something be allowed the same say as somebody who understands the full implications? (this is voting as a whole not in/out of the EU).

Edited By: ipswich78 on Mar 13, 2017 18:08: typo
#26
catbeans
Personally i think referendums should be a more regular occurrence, not the way they do it now with massive campaigns. Have say 2 weeks a year (if needed at all), get the few key issues, have all the shows and opinions at the end of the two weeks we all vote, done.

Move to Switzerland, that's how they do it there.
#27
ipswich78
I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.
But how can that be a bad thing? Why should people with no understanding and not willing to spend some time to learn about something be allowed the same say as somebody who understands the full implications? (this is voting as a whole not in/out of the EU).

I would say that the reason is the people who wrote the question didn't know what exactly the vote was about, let alone the people who voted. And that's still the case.

If I voted remain, does that mean I want to remain no matter what happens? If, to take it to an extreme, the EU started escalating towards a war footing with Russia? Or letting anyone in, no questions asked? If I voted leave, does that mean leave at any cost? Even if, taken to an extreme, we are entirely ostracised economically and politically into an irrelevant island who can't hold a candle to the USA, the EU, Russia, China etc? Where's the option for the people who aren't tied to nationalism or Europeanism and just want to find a moderate ground? The option that says we may choose this now but we're not tied to it to death may us part, and if the situation changes then we might have a different answer?

The problem was there's no real way to do it without it being ridiculously complicated. It's not a question that can be answered with a single tick-box.
#28
EndlessWaves
catbeans
Personally i think referendums should be a more regular occurrence, not the way they do it now with massive campaigns. Have say 2 weeks a year (if needed at all), get the few key issues, have all the shows and opinions at the end of the two weeks we all vote, done.
Move to Switzerland, that's how they do it there.
I would, if i spoke one of the languages they speak Switzerland, had transferrable skills and a job to go to.

I wonder if they have any jobs in the Toblerone factory going hmmmm.
#29
Muir
ipswich78
I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.
But how can that be a bad thing? Why should people with no understanding and not willing to spend some time to learn about something be allowed the same say as somebody who understands the full implications? (this is voting as a whole not in/out of the EU).
I would say that the reason is the people who wrote the question didn't know what exactly the vote was about, let alone the people who voted. And that's still the case.
If I voted remain, does that mean I want to remain no matter what happens? If, to take it to an extreme, the EU started escalating towards a war footing with Russia? Or letting anyone in, no questions asked? If I voted leave, does that mean leave at any cost? Even if, taken to an extreme, we are entirely ostracised economically and politically into an irrelevant island who can't hold a candle to the USA, the EU, Russia, China etc? Where's the option for the people who aren't tied to nationalism or Europeanism and just want to find a moderate ground? The option that says we may choose this now but we're not tied to it to death may us part, and if the situation changes then we might have a different answer?
The problem was there's no real way to do it without it being ridiculously complicated. It's not a question that can be answered with a single tick-box.
Great answer.
#30
ipswich78
jonnithomas
ipswich78
sowotsdis
don't understand the issues?
don 't be patronising!
qualifying test ?
Do you understand what the word democracy means?
It's not patronising at all. And you clearly didn't take the time to my comment fully (or maybe you didn't understand it?) - "but does democracy really work?"
How terribly patronising of you. Simply because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they don't understand what you said
You seem to hold the opinion that your opinion and that of others that agree with you is somehow more valid than people that disagree with you.
your suggestion that only those in a meritocracy should be able to vote is laughable. firstly how could you possibly define the 'merit' ? should we decree that only those with a masters or higher is educated enough to understand the issues ? or how about only people with £1M in the bank or 20 staff working for them or any other pretty random selection criteria.
Personally I agree with Voltaire and even more with “― Oscar Wilde "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
In that light by all means continue posting :)
It was slightly patronising but that was based on the poster questioning something I hadn't even written. And to do so, shows that they either didn't actually read my post or didn't understand it.
My opinion is indeed more valid than others, but then there are other people who have a much more valid opinion than me on the matter. That's life and applies to many things. An opinion is exactly that, and just because somebody has one doesn't mean you have to respect it if their opinion is based on incorrect facts.
Again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post...) - I did not in anyway suggest that only 'those in meritocracy should be able to vote'. I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.
But how can that be a bad thing? Why should people with no understanding and not willing to spend some time to learn about something be allowed the same say as somebody who understands the full implications? (this is voting as a whole not in/out of the EU).

I believe the same... my parents voted not knowing the full implications and I'm sure many people did.
#31
Again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post...) - I did not in anyway suggest that only 'those in meritocracy should be able to vote'. I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.


Oh dear...... What you are describing IS a meritocracy. It may be a word that you didn't specifically use so it is a word put into your mouth literally. However, please look up the meaning of the words meritocracy and democracy.

you are arguing on subjects that you don't seem to actually understand properly. may I recommend that you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy

it really is quite ironic that your post #21 accuses another poster of inadequate understanding of the subject when that actually applies to yourself.

however, until you understand the subject matter adequately there is little point in discussion.
#32
ipswich78
An opinion is exactly that. I often ask people for their opinion in my workplace - doesn't mean we always go with the majority decision. Not everybody is an expert in everything, for example I would take less notice of a salesperson's view on our IT Security than I would the Head of IT.
An opinion should be listened to, but it doesn't necessarily have to be actioned if it's not for the benefit of the majority.
I voted in the recent referendum (and it was exactly that...) and whilst my vote is worth the same as everybody elses to say I have the same understanding of somebody in a relevant field on euro politics etc. is ludicrous. That's the problem with democracy...

Your government by technocrats sounds appealing, but.

Who should we put in charge of the economy - economists? Very few of them saw the economic crash of 2008 coming.

Let's stick with good old democracy. Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others - Churchill
#33
jonnithomas
Again, you are putting words into my mouth (or post...) - I did not in anyway suggest that only 'those in meritocracy should be able to vote'. I suggested it could be wise to test people before they vote to ensure they actually understand what they are voting on about. That person might be rich, they might be poor, they might be well educated or they might be uneducated. It was based on ensuring they 'understand' what it represents.
Oh dear...... What you are describing IS a meritocracy. It may be a word that you didn't specifically use so it is a word put into your mouth literally. However, please look up the meaning of the words meritocracy and democracy.
you are arguing on subjects that you don't seem to actually understand properly. may I recommend that you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy
it really is quite ironic that your post #21 accuses another poster of inadequate understanding of the subject when that actually applies to yourself.
however, until you understand the subject matter adequately there is little point in discussion.
Interesting. And yes it would appear you are correct, I wasn't aware of the full concept of meritocracy so thank you for highlighting this. In hindsight it would be that I do indeed encourage it and it seems like an interesting concept.
#34
Yes, an interesting concept which Plato first proposed :) Trouble is that it's not egalitarian and it is undemocratic.
#35
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.
#36
doogan9
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.


have you been polishing your crystal ball ?
#37
doogan9
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.
When what situation is clearer?
#38
doogan9
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.


No had your chance, and we're gone
#39
doogan9
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.
I think you're right. A lot of the people who voted out have now seen the error of their ways and would change their mind. They've realised that the uncertainty caused has already had a negative impact on many things and that's only likely to continue. With no real plan for an escape, a lot of people must be looking back on their 'exit' vote and be regretting it. I do hope the generations to come don't suffer too much by a lot of the bitterness around all of this.
#40
ipswich78
doogan9
I have absolutely no doubt that a second referendum would result in at least 60/40 in favour of remaining. After we hear what Europe offers there will be even more in favour of remaining. We should have another vote on In or Out when the situation is clearer. Common sense.
I think you're right. A lot of the people who voted out have now seen the error of their ways and would change their mind. They've realised that the uncertainty caused has already had a negative impact on many things and that's only likely to continue. With no real plan for an escape, a lot of people must be looking back on their 'exit' vote and be regretting it. I do hope the generations to come don't suffer too much by a lot of the bitterness around all of this.


I haven't seen the error of my ways and so has the majority of people I know who voted out. Everyone knew the uncertainty before the vote. No one will suffer, Britain was fine long before Europe and will be fine for long after. Just because you was born in a time when everything relied on europe, it doesn't mean 10-20 years down the line it will be a lot better not being in.

Post an Answer

You don't need an account to leave a response. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.

...OR log in with your social account

...OR comment using your social account

Thanks for your comment! Keep it up!
We just need to have a quick look and it will be live soon.
The community is happy to hear your opinion! Keep contributing!