This isn't how it works.

If we had a second vote on this topic so soon after the first one.....and lets remember that pro EU governments wouldn't allow a vote for forty years.....If a second vote was allowed and remain won.....How is that more legitimate?

Leave could then just as legitimately say.....hang on, remain lied....Remain dominated the media, they spent far more, they had the government's backing and so on....They can point to many aspects of fairness.

How then could remainers say that a best of three wasn't just as legitimate?

Then a best of five....and so on.

I'm not wholely against the idea of a second vote. However, you guys have to wait, like we were made to wait.

As we are generally far....and not just by a little, but far more interested in democracy than many on the remain side I'd be content with another vote ten or twenty years down the line once Brexit had really had a chance.

As far as I'm seeing.....Remain want to destroy Brexit, which won quite clearly, before it has even started by any means possible.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Dec 2018 4.22pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Over forty years we had to wait, don't be silly Maple.

Nope, there is no legitimacy in asking for a second vote until there has been a significant time span where people can make a informed verdict on Brexit and whether they want to associate themselves with the EU.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

I never said people are stupid, you can't change the past so yes, no 2nd vote and let's see it out.

Maybe the negative economic forecasts are exaggerated but they do come from very credible sources like the governer of the bank of England and CEOs at top companies and not many are putting forward any positives, if at all.

You may have voted for non economic reasons but its still your mortgage, the price at the till, your house price, your pension at play. Were putting all that up for absolutely nothing in return.

Paua oouaarancì Irà chiyeah Ishé galé ma ba oo ah

There were pushes for a vote on the EU for decades, they were resisted despite governments of both left and right signing up to controversial EU agreements precisely because they deemed that they could lose a vote.

So I find your presentation of the recent past very convenient. What we have had is a hell of a point of establishment backed scare mongering from those with agendas. Let the people find out how Brexit works out for themselves. After ten years, if it's convenient, we shall vote.

We had a vote in 2016.....remain had most of the money and most of the media. They lost.

Now we should have Brexit.....otherwise having votes is pointless and illusions to democracy are just that.

Edited by Stirlingsays (17 Dec 2018 4.53pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

As a politician I would want a second vote here.

I wouldn't want to be associated with a disaster without covering myself and acquainting the public with what is actually happening.

Then it is their problem.

My attitude though is that the government is their to govern and act in the national interest, not to ask the uninformed public what to do.

Brexit must be terminated for that reason.

It is not in the countries interest, as Tony Blair has just said.

Is this the same Tony Blair that insisted that we should invade Iraq as they had weapons of mass destruction?