Brexit: Petition for second EU referendum rejected

[Deleted]

You might not give a fuck but it does make you seem less intelligent and also very hard to read when you can't even be bothered to use capitals in the right place, very poor punctuation and atrocious use of wording. Sorry if anyone seems to come out as some kid it's you.

since when does MMO-C users care about grammar and punctuation get lost

[Calfredd]

since when does MMO-C users care about grammar and punctuation get lost

When they can hardly understand what someone is saying. Or would it be better 2 tlk leik ths wit u?

[Kallisto]

since when does MMO-C users care about grammar and punctuation get lost

We don't care about it being perfect. But you make yourself unintelligible with how you punctuate. It actually destroys the foundation on which you try to make your argument because if you can't be understood due to your own laziness or whatever no one is going to think your claims hold any intelligent merit.

[Deletedaccount1]

This thread sucks.

[Mayhem]

You said "I love the hypocrisy of how the UK wanted to leave the union but won´t let scotland leave their union, delicious." So you were either unaware that Scotland had a vote on self determination, i.e. leaving the Union, in which case there is no hypocrisy, or you don't know what hypocrisy means.

Either way your statement was nonsense, yet you keep defending it.

They would´ve lost EU membership, obviously that wasn´t their goal, but times change and therefore they should be able to hold a new referendum, because it´s not even remotely the same situation anymore.

I explained to you the hypocrisy, it´s the direction the union went that not all members are willing to go, the very same reason why the UK wanted to leave is apparently not enough reason for scotland to have a referendum.

And again, you have not countered what I have said, so not entirely sure how you count that as me embarrassing myself. Perhaps you should have read my arguments, rather than invent what you think my arguments are.

I can´t counter what you aren´t able to properly explain. You just keep babbling about juncker and merkel, and pretend that what your saying has any meaning.

[Kalis]

They would´ve lost EU membership, obviously that wasn´t their goal, but times change and therefore they should be able to hold a new referendum, because it´s not even remotely the same situation anymore.

They knew that there was a possibility of giving up EU membership at the time, the vote was not conditional upon things staying exactly the same, that was not in the question asked that they voted upon.

I explained to you the hypocrisy, it´s the direction the union went that not all members are willing to go, the very same reason why the UK wanted to leave is apparently not enough reason for scotland to have a referendum.

Scotland had a vote on leaving the Union, the UK had a vote on leaving the EU. There is no hypocrisy.

Are you under the impression that the EU referendum vote was separate for each Home Nation, or something? Scotland didn't vote for anything in the EU referendum, neither did England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, the UK as a whole voted to leave.

I can´t counter what you aren´t able to properly explain. You just keep babbling about juncker and merkel, and pretend that what your saying has any meaning.

I explained it fully in the previous thread, you not having a competent enough grasp of English to understand it is not my fault. I am under no obligation to dumb down my English for others.

[Slant]

This thread sucks.

It kind of does, doesn't it?

[Mayhem]

They knew that there was a possibility of giving up EU membership at the time, the vote was not conditional upon things staying exactly the same, that was not in the question asked that they voted upon.

They would´ve given up EU membership by leaving the UK. With the options of "maybe leaving the EU but probably not (2014 polls) or surely leaving the EU" they decided to go with option A.

Scotland had a vote on leaving the Union, the UK had a vote on leaving the EU. There is no hypocrisy.

Are you under the impression that the EU referendum vote was separate for each Home Nation, or something? Scotland didn't vote for anything in the EU referendum, neither did England, or Wales, or Northern Ireland, the UK as a whole voted to leave.

Apparently the SNP seems to think that too, since they´re arguing from a scotish point of view and not an UK point of view.

I explained it fully in the previous thread, you not having a competent enough grasp of English to understand it is not my fault. I am under no obligation to dumb down my English for others.

No, you haven´t then and you still don´t. You´re on a deflection routine that includes ridiculing me for not speaking my second language as good as your first language , classy.

[Kalis]

They would´ve given up EU membership by leaving the UK. With the options of "maybe leaving the EU but probably not (2014 polls) or surely leaving the EU" they decided to go with option A.

Can you link the question on the Scottish referendum vote that said they get another vote if things change?

Apparently the SNP seems to think that too, since they´re arguing from a scotish point of view and not an UK point of view.

There was no vote for individual Home Nations, it was voted for by the UK as a whole, which the SNP are fully aware of.

That they infer Scotland voted separately is due to them being Scottish nationalists and it suiting their agenda to say that - the clue that they are Scottish nationalists is in their name, Scottish National Party.

No, you haven´t then and you still don´t. You´re on a deflection routine that includes ridiculing me for not speaking my second language as good as your first language , classy.

And once again, it is not my fault that your English language skills are lacking. I don't go on Greek language forums and tell them that their arguments don't make sense due to me not fully understanding them, as that is my fault and not theirs, yet you seem to think that you should have special privileges.

[Mayhem]

Can you link the question on the Scottish referendum vote that said they get another vote if things change?

You´re not just moving the goal post, you´re trying to play on a different field mid-game.

Can you link to something that denies them another referendum if things change?

There was no vote for individual Home Nations, it was voted for by the UK as a whole, which the SNP are fully aware of.

That they infer Scotland voted separately is due to them being Scottish nationalists and it suiting their agenda to say that - the clue that they are Scottish nationalists is in their name, Scottish National Party.

Yet, when the EU votes on to something the UK got up in arms when it was against their goals... leading to the referendum and to a possible brexit. It´s funny how you defend the british union against arguments bexiters use for leaving the european union.

And once again, it is not my fault that your English language skills are lacking. I don't go on Greek language forums and tell them that their arguments don't make sense due to me not fully understanding them, as that is my fault and not theirs, yet you seem to think that you should have special privileges.

You never explained where i´m wrong or what i don´t understand, you just keep repeating "i´m right, not my fault you don´t understand me".
It´s an english language forum, but it´s not used solely by english speakers, so it´s of course your fault for not being able to use a form of english commonly understood by foreigners.

Unless of course you only want to talk to people from the UK and the US, but then you should probably leave OT.

[Kalis]

You´re not just moving the goal post, you´re trying to play on different field now.

I haven't moved any goalposts, you said they were due another referendum because things changed, yet that wasn't part of any agreement.

Yet, when the EU votes on to something the UK got up in arms when it was against their goals... leading to the referendum and to a possible brexit. It´s funny how you defend the british union against arguments bexiters use for leaving the european union.

Why have you changed the subject? Do you acknowledge that you are wrong and that the UK voted as a whole, or not?

You never explained where i´m wrong or what i don´t understand, you just keep repeating "i´m right, not my fault you don´t understand me".
It´s an english language forum, but it´s not used solely by english speakers, so it´s of course your fault for not being able to use a form of english commonly understood by foreigners.

I am under no obligation to change my English, I use a perfectly acceptable form of the language.

Unless of course you only want to talk to people from the UK and the US, but then you should probably leave OT.

Or you could leave until you have learnt English properly.

[Mayhem]

I haven't moved any goalposts, you said they were due another referendum because things changed, yet that wasn't part of any agreement.

What agreement? No more referendums befor 2050 regardless of what happens?

Why have you changed the subject? Do you acknowledge that you are wrong and that the UK voted as a whole, or not?

I haven´t. Yes i do acknowledge, that´s also the hypocrisy in it, that you obviously don´t want to see.

I am under no obligation to change my English, I use a perfectly acceptable form of the language.

Apparently, no you don´t. How would you answer your own question? Who has more power, Juncker or Merkel?

Or you could leave until you have learnt English properly.

Or i could ignore you until you´ve learned some manners.

[Kalis]

What agreement? No more referendums befor 2050 regardless of what happens?

The referendum question was agreed in advance, there was no mention of a do over in it if things changed, so where are yo getting that they should have one from?

I haven´t. Yes i do acknowledge, that´s also the hypocrisy in it, that you obviously don´t want to see.

Hypocrisy would have been allowing the Scottish a vote on self determination but not allowing the UK as a whole one, but that didn't happen, so there is no hypocrisy.

Scotland had its vote and voted to stay in the UK, the UK had its vote and voted to leave the EU.

Apparently, no you don´t. How would you answer your own question? Who has more power, Juncker or Merkel?

Merkel has more power. She is the elected head of the most powerful state within the EU, Juncker isn't.

Or i could ignore you until you´ve learned some manners.

I wouldn't care.

- - - Updated - - -

Quoting to confirm. Not seeing any arguments or references or sources. Main reason why it comes across as desperation / wishful thinking.

You realise that relates to another thread, don't you?

[Mayhem]

The referendum question was agreed in advance, there was no mention of a do over in it if things changed, so where are yo getting that they should have one from?

Because, things have changed? If things change and you´re unhappy with them, you normally do something about it and not take it because of something unrelated that happened earlier.

Hypocrisy would have been allowing the Scottish a vote on self determination but not allowing the UK as a whole one, but that didn't happen, so there is no hypocrisy.

... no, the hypcorisy of the UK wanting out of the union because things changed too much but not letting scotland out of their union based on the very same argument.

Scotland had its vote and voted to stay in the UK, the UK had its vote and voted to leave the EU.

Yes, part of that was because staying in the UK meant guaranteed staying member of the EU.

Merkel has more power. She is the elected head of the most powerful state within the EU, Juncker isn't.

Then why are you moaning about Juncker all the time?

[Kalis]

It relates to your entire posting behaviour in whichever thread "Brexit" is the subject.

Except that only came about after the UK voted to leave, it was in direct response to comments made by people within the EU, so that is literally not possible.

Are you bullshitting again?

- - - Updated - - -

Because, things have changed? If things change and you´re unhappy with them, you normally do something about it and not take it because of something unrelated that happened earlier.

If what things change? If anything changes? If some random thing that you decide is relevant changes? What are the exact criteria and why were they not included within the referendum question agreed by all sides?

Why should rules be changed after the vote? Who does that?

... no, the hypcorisy of the UK wanting out of the union because things changed too much but not letting scotland out of their union based on the very same argument.

The UK did not leave the EU because things changed too much, a significant portion of the population had not liked being in the EU (and its predecessors) for decades. There are episodes of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister that cover this very subject and they were from the 1980s.

Yes, part of that was because staying in the UK meant guaranteed staying member of the EU.

What percentage exactly voted for that?

Then why are you moaning about Juncker all the time?

It was about their attitude and it is bollocks to say I complain about Juncker all the time, I mentioned him once or twice.

[Mayhem]

If what things change? If anything changes? If some random thing that you decide is relevant changes? What are the exact criteria and why were they not included within the referendum question agreed by all sides?

Why should rules be changed after the vote? Who does that?

I don´t know, things like leaving a union of 500 million people against the will of your voters might be a big enough change, don´t you think?

The UK did not leave the EU because things changed too much, a significant portion of the population had not liked being in the EU (and its predecessors) for decades. There are episodes of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister that cover this very subject and they were from the 1980s.

Hmm farages arguments seemed to be different ones.

What percentage exactly voted for that?

Good question.

It was about their attitude and it is bollocks to say I complain about Juncker all the time, I mentioned him once or twice.

Yeah, in this thread alone.

[Independent voter]

After the Brexit they brought a lot of British experts on a show I listen to. One of them said a redo was possible, he said a new political party would have to form whose entire platform was to "remain" in the EU. Let's call them the "Remainders" party. This party would run and if they won a majority, they could launch a new referendum.

That would be seen by the British people as legit.

[Kiri]

Scotland had its vote and voted to stay in the UK, the UK had its vote and voted to leave the EU.

Scotland was not given the whole range of options during their referendum. Given that, at the time, the EU referendum was already a possibility, the choices that Scotland was offered were simply:
- Be independent, leave EU and UK
- Don't be independent, stay in the UK and possibly the EU

...with the 'possibly' part to be decided by the EU referendum. However, since in the EU referendum Scotland had much less voting power than England, Scotland's 60+% remain vote could be ignored.

A new referendum would have different choices, despite the ballot still saying 'Should Scotland be an independent country?', for it would boil down to:
- Be independent, leave the UK and re-join the EU
- Do not be independent, stay in the UK and leave the EU

Those are vastly different questions, despite using the same wording. Boiling it down to the vote of 'independence' is simply a rhetoric that allows the UK to deflect another referendum and, incidentally, was a wording imposed by the UK election committee. Which also decided that the Scottish independence vote should come before the Brexit vote. That is the kind of voting-power play and policy-combining/separating that happens all the time in politics, especially in international organizations. And one of the reasons why British people voted for leave in the first place.

But obviously, when Brussels does it, it is evil.

[Kalis]

You not referencing any sources or really providing any arguments in Brexit threads really doesn't have anything to do with when the UK had it's vote.

What are you talking about? I quoted Iain Duncan Smith in this very thread, which apparently is not a good enough source

I mean he has only known Theresa May for at least a decade-and-a-half, including confirming her to his Shadow Cabinet when he was party leader and being a Cabinet member alongside her under Cameron for six years, which kind of makes him a credible source for conversations he has had with May.

But hey, that isn't a source, because wannabe anarchist and Djalil said so...

[Noradin]

You are comparing rerunning a vote versus General Elections that happen every five years, they are not comparable, though you said they were. Who said they had to be exactly the same?

When did I say anything about rerunning the same vote? (I clearly stated that that is impossible anyway.)
The only thing I'm arguing against is that this one needs to seen as binding for a whole generation.
Humans do make mistakes, circumstances do change, new information sometimes does turn up; and in such a case it would be prudent to ask oneself if the population can be asked to vote again. What most people thought they voted for is apparently impossible, thus it would be beneficial to have several parties with different proposals how to solve this dilemma. Unfortunately the UK's political setup cannot support so many parties in a meaningful way (FPTP is the culprit here).