I agree with a lot of this Matov never the less I suspect they will still find a way to steal it from us.

One more point

The results of the June 23rd vote were based on a series of campaign "promises" that may or may not be true. The chief one for me is the point made by Boris Johnson that there was an instant savings of £300 million plus to be had if Brexit happened. That has been disputed and is now considered by many to be false based on the Article 50 negotiations. Recent polling suggests that many of the "swing" areas of England where the previous referendum was decided have had a change of heart. That also may or may not be so, polling is not the exact science it has been sold to be. Most of my political experience, which dates back to 1964, tells me the first vote was not decisive. 52-53% in a national vote with wide disparities amongst the regions tells me the nation was then and still is divided fairly closely on the issue. I have quite conflicting views and would probably decide which way I would vote at the last minute. Brussels is a vast unelected decision making power with very few checks or balances. It would appear to me that the one elected European body, the Parliament, is little more than advisory. The theory of economic convergence amongst over two dozen sovereign countries has not worked. Certainly the EU has not been the best it could be. However, I believe for this world to survive national borders and regional sovereignty must yield towards a world government. Are we there yet? Certainly not. When written in the mid 1960s, "Star Trek," where such a society is theorized, took place 300 hundred years (middle 22nd Century) in the future after a cataclysmic war that ended only when the discovery of a radically new means of propulsion which makes inter-stellar exploration possible. That isn't even close to happening. Therefore, reform of the EU is an absolute must if the UK can continue within it. David Cameron tried to achieve such reform and was rebuffed. Therefore, when the referendum occurred, the British electorate had to weigh whether Britain had the influence necessary to achieve the reform required. The evaluation then was small majority thought not. That may have changed since but that's also highly questionable. My own view, for what it's worth, is that economically Britain would be better off remaining but politically its influence in how the EU is run must be felt if continued membership is to have any meaning. Therefore, color me a reluctant Remainer with a healthy dose of scepticism.

Divorced...And LOVING it!
VJRAM Rev.
CPFC since Boxing Day 1989 CPFC 2-2 CFC
Gregg Berhalter, US International & USMNT Head Coach
Jill Ellis, England International & Retired USWNT Head Coach
Trevor Francis, International PRAT

I think Parliament need to now either put up or shut up. We need to see a simple choice offered to them of leaving on April 12th with no deal or else revoking Article 50. This needs settling, one way or the other.

Yes, utter mayhem ensues and the Leave campaign continues but at least Parliament would have asserted itself one way or the other.

If they revoke it, then the country faces a crisis almost unprecedented in peace-time but at least they have been honest with us.

Better that than a rigged second referendum which offers nothing by way of settlement and merely fans the flames in a way that threatens to consume everything we have left as a nation.

If I ever vote again, my vote goes simply to the party offering me the swiftest departure from the EU but our Parliament needs to regain a modicum of self-respect and it does that by holdings its own, simple, leave or remain vote. No party whips, no pressure from leaders but a chance to show the British public whether or not they meant what they said in terms of honouring the result on June 23rd 2016.

Would rather somebody looked me in the eyes before stabbing me than plunge a knife into my back.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

It very well might be the only way out of this.

Unlike the first binary referendum to a non binary question, this one would be linked to actual deliverables.

It would have May’s deal sitting there, ready to be passed, already aligned with the EU. It would be a vote on tangible and deliverable options, not a vote on something which is undeliverable, like in 2016. The options would be pre agreed and sitting there ready to be implemented.

There was nothing sitting there in 2016, as we all know. It was smoke and mirrors on both sides.

It must inlude an option to remain, if people who have been learning and understanding more about what leaving really means, now feel differently. I understand how leavers don’t like that, but it simply has to be an option.

Regarding a boycott or the illegitimacy of a second vote, in any vote if you want your voice heard, don’t boycott it. May’s deal or some other kind of Brexit could still win in a public vote.

3 years have passed, nothing has been accomplished.

A different way forward is needed and that is one of the options.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.

So you find it acceptable that business controls Parliament and democracy has no effect?

I don't find that acceptable.

Of course, you don't live in Britain do you? You live in a country that was founded on 'We the People'

Edited by Hrolf The Ganger (02 Apr 2019 2.57pm)

Business has a voice, that is the way of the world.

Democracy is not what happened in 2016. An undeliverable vote happened in 2016. Guess what, 3 years later, it is still undeliverable.

A vote which cannot be delivered on, is undemocratic, one could argue?

I spent the first 25 years of my life living in Britain.

Trump lost. Badly. Hahahahahahaha.