« If gold doth rust, what will iron do? | Main | "Worst civil investment ever' as MPs failed to notice. »

December 26, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


So if the result was swung by lies, why do we owe it respect and duty? If we kick others out, we will ourselves be kicked out. Why did Cameron bring about the referendum when according to him, European peace hangs in the balance? Clown?

I'm sick of them Paul. I don't want to fight them, argue with them, I just want them to disappear. Sinister overtone but I'm serious; that they never were. Posh idiots. Throwing the country to the dogs because they can peddle a few banalities convincingly?

What they did, it was grim, and what have they left us with? Don't excuse them, don't argue for them, I can't accept it. The worst crash since the depression, lets hammer them with austerity? Now he is off making mega bucks?

They chose their path and will enjoy it for all eternity, and are welcome to it as far as I am concerned.

Now I say (if you think I am unreasonable) look at what they are actually doing. God loves, but you can cross him, and he will hate. He will hate you if: you bomb children who do their best to gather fire wood. He will bomb YOU if you hurt his people and take away any dignity honour and self respectability from the duty, wage earning or otherwise.

That is my position.


I suppose if this becomes well-established it could be used to bring a second referendum since the leave result was so narrow. If there is indeed strong proof and confirmation of it. You would also need to come up with newer and better arguments should there be sufficient basis for a second go. A proper and better campaign is desirable. In the public sphere. Instead of what we got which was a couple of weeks of stunts and vague promises and superficialities, which (albeit with hindsight) are now more apparent, to some. For example, one side promises jam (less restriction on fishing quotas), the reality is (according to something you said, I'm not the most informed) the workers doing the work in the first place are to some extent, migrants.

Is there time? I think there is if the argument can be made for the need for it. The campaigns, such as they were, were inadequate. They barely involved the people. So I'm comfortable in saying that IF we can hear the interests and voices of the major interested parties (the regions, the economic interest of the majority now and in the future) all assisted by (I have to choose my words carefully) a real and frank debate instead of slogans and soundbites from politicians then a second referendum is reasonable, desirable and in the public interest. I may have missed the point and suggested something along the same lines (not least because a frank and thorough campaign about what is in the interests of the majority is precisely what the establishment don't want), but there it is.

Now, my suggestion is to be more realistic about the difficulties and outcomes of the result either way. Talk about what we would stand to lose, the entitlements and protections (you got there before me anyway).

In short, a second referendum seems to me to be the only reasonable course, and that the campaign such as it was from both sides leading up to the original result was, frankly, rubbish.

The comments to this entry are closed.