Proportional Representation (now morphed into B****t 2 or is it 3)

[Glyn_Wigley]

Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:

No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?

Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.

Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?

Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.

As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.

a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?

If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.

If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?

See my reply to your first question.

Bet you don't answer my questions now.

[Bentley Bullet]

Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:

No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?

Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.

So you don't think there's a difference between campaigning against a vote and demanding another one?

Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?

Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.

So you think my opinion that having another vote would undermine democracy as we know it is complete rubbish. Don't you think there are millions of people who disagree with you, thus it resulting in being the end of British politics as we know it?


As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.

So you agree a re-vote would be undemocratic? The House of Lords is part of the political system and is not what is on the agenda to change. Voting out something that has only just been democratically voted in before it has even been enforced is.

a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?

If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.

So you don't think it would become your problem if millions of people rebel against a re-vote?

If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?

See my reply to your first question.

I never asked you if it should be accepted, I asked you if they'd demand a best of 3 sitiation.

Bet you don't answer my questions now.

Bett you wiggle out as usual.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Mr Wiggerly. Do you agree with:

No matter what type of voting system we have the most important issue is accepting the result?

Yes, the result should be accepted, but that doesn't mean you have to agree with it or not be allowed to campaign against it.

So you don't think there's a difference between campaigning against a vote and demanding another one?

Someone campaigning may demand another vote as part of that campaign but they're not the same thing.

Having another vote would undermine democracy resulting in the end of British politics as we know it?

Complete rubbish. British politics runs on the convention that one vote only lasts for as long as until another supercedes it. Whether it's been 'enacted' or not.

So you think my opinion that having another vote would undermine democracy as we know it is complete rubbish. Don't you think there are millions of people who disagree with you, thus it resulting in being the end of British politics as we know it?


No I don't.


As for British politics not surviving something undemocratic, it has survived quite well for centuries with the completely undemocratic House Of Lords sat in the middle of it. But you're trying to contend that one vote by the British people will destroy it? Sums you up.

a vote that has already been democratically voted on will not be seen in many millions of pairs of eyes as a democratic vote?

If they don't understand how British politics works (see above) then that's their problem not mine.

So you don't think it would become your problem if millions of people rebel against a re-vote?

They won't. Besides which, you didn't mention a hypothetical rebellion of millions in your original question. But as it won't happen, no it's not my problem

If there is another vote and it went Remain, would the Leavers demand a 'best of 3' situation?

See my reply to your first question.

I never asked you if it should be accepted, I asked you if they'd demand a best of 3 sitiation.

How the f**k should I know what they'd do although no doubt there'd be the usual social media shitshow.

Bet you don't answer my questions now.

Bett you wiggle out as usual.

That's twice I've not wiggled out of answering you. Still waiting for you not to wiggle out of answering my questions.

[Bentley Bullet]

I'm sure some people will find your forecast of a lack of reaction to a re-vote situation quite comforting. Unfortunately, I find anything that comes from you has an opposite effect.

[Glyn_Wigley]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who doesn't think that there will be a rebellion of millions if there's a second referendum.

I've given you the courtesy of answering your questions twice now and am still waiting for you to stop wiggling and show me the same courtesy.

[Bentley Bullet]

I've wiggled through enough of your posts today, Mr Wiggerly. How about asking me again and once I've de-wiggled it I'll try to answer you.

[Glyn_Wigley]

Thought not. The concept is alien to you.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB.

Leave with no deal?
Canada deal?
Canada +?
Canada++?
Switzerland deal?
Norway deal?
Norway ++?
BINO?
May's deal?
Stay in the Custom's Union?
Stay in A Custom's Union?
Stay in the Single Market?
Stay aligned with the Single Market?
Have access to the Single Market?
Have a deal that prevents a hard border in Ireland?

Like I say, there is not and never was any single thing called "Leave". It's a myriad of different possibilities. All with vastly different pros and cons. Some of those possibilities are technically "Leave"-ing, but the consequence would be closer to Remain than to leaving with no deal.

I'm not sure where you've been for the past 2.5 years, but that's pretty much what the whole clusterf**k discussion has been about. How you define "Leave".

I understand your wish to simplify the problem down to a binary choice, but the real world out there is a bit more complicated than that.

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

[Ldr]

That's how I saw it too

[IDM]

Surely it was clear enough that the UK is so deeply embedded within the EU, that leaving would always be a very complex issue and not as simple as walking away no deal, leading to chaos.?

A second referendum isn’t a simple repeat of the last one, it should be a vote with clear options..

I would wait to see what the definitions were, and if there is a leave option which suits me I could just as easily vote leave as remain.. but last time that clarity wasn’t there was it.?

[Boomstick]

The vote was-  leave or remain

It WAS NOT - deal or remain

[BillyStubbsTears]

That's odd then. Given that Farage was still proposing a Norway deal 6 months after the referendum.

Given that Fox was saying after the referendum that we'd get a deal with the EU and it would be the easiest negotiation in history. Given that Davies was proposing a Canada++ deal 18 months after the referendum.

Remind me. Who was talking about leaving with No Deal in June 2016?

[IDM]

The vote was-  leave or remain

It WAS NOT - deal or remain

Exactly, which was crazy.! Uncertainty at best, chaos at worst, vs maintaining the status quo..

[Glyn_Wigley]

The official Vote Leave promise was this if you voted Leave:

"We have a new UK-EU Treaty based on free trade and friendly cooperation. There is a European free trade zone from Iceland to the Russian border and we will be part of it."

I'd have thought that no deal betrays that promise. I'm surprised so few other people do.

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

[Ldr]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I'd already made my mind up, but I'd probably have changed it if I'd listened to you.

[RedJ]

That's odd then. Given that Farage was still proposing a Norway deal 6 months after the referendum.

Given that Fox was saying after the referendum that we'd get a deal with the EU and it would be the easiest negotiation in history. Given that Davies was proposing a Canada++ deal 18 months after the referendum.

Remind me. Who was talking about leaving with No Deal in June 2016?

And prominent Brexiteers have suggested before the vote there could be a final vote on the final deal.

And the fact that David Davis said this:

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I'd already made my mind up, but I'd probably have changed it if I'd listened to you.

I agree.

[Ldr]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

[Ldr]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

[IDM]

I accept thank you and many others voted to leave in a simple out or in choice..

But don’t you think it would have been fairer if the outcomes had been clearly defined first.?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?

And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

Just a PS - I was quoting the Official Vote Leave Campaign literature. Who should people have believed if not the Official campaign?

[Ldr]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?

And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?

Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?

And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?

Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no

So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.

[Ldr]

BST, as I saw it it was a vote to leave with no deal. I didn't think we'd have to 'deal', other than to tie up loose ends, such as settlement figures etc. I expected these to be carried out after Brexit, not delaying it.

You should have read Vote Leave's promises. Then you'd have known better.

I understood, as anyone should, that both leave and remain campaign groups had no authority to make promises and for you to paint such in the same way as a manifesto is disingenuous. I expect that from you though

I can only quote what the official Leave campaign were saying themselves. Not even they were promising No Deal. So for people to say that's what they understood it to mean at the time of voting...where did that idea come from? Was no official campaign to be believed and people were just supposed to make up their own versions?

If you were weak minded and daft enough to believe promises made by campaign groups with no official political power then more fool you. The ballot paper was simple enough to explain what the choice was.

If you then proceeded to make up your own version of what you though you were getting, wouldn't that be even more fool you?

I understood that I voted to leave the European union. No deals, none of the different models offered in BSTs post. Any of those would be a bonus granted. No preconceived ideas on anything, just to leave. If you want to twist that to fit into your narrative (I'm sure you will as you always do, kind of understand the opinion certain members of the fb group have of you now)

I'm just saying that nobody promised you no deals. I'm not twisting that - unless you know of a promise of no deal that WAS made by somebody at the time of the referendum that I don't know about?

And as I asked earlier, wouldn't therefore no deal be a betrayal of what was actually promised to the voters?

Since a campaign group has no grounds to make promises as it has no legislative power, no

So we shouldn't have believed anything Vote Leave said? The Leave campaign was pretty much all promises.

Man you like to twist don't you. I assume that because you agreed with remain everything they said or did is beyond reproach? As for leave, not my place to say is it?