Nonsense wrote:It probably never crosses your mind,considering your statement, that pensioners may vote the way they do, for the long term benefit of the country,based on their lifelong experience, for which our membership of the E.U is just one part & they have the earlier history in their experience from which the idea arose.
Similarly like there is uncertainty about the severity of economic consequences, there is uncertainty about long term benefits. World is more globalized than it was 50 years ago. Some voters may come to conclusion it is not worth it to risk it. It may be a better idea to revoke article 50, block EU decisions and force the EU to split into multi speed organization with Britain remaining in the less integrated part (possibly only an economic union), not being affected by the core part. This strategy would force the EU to find a solution rather than Britain.
Nonsense wrote:An 'indecisive' parliament, is not grounds for calling an election, or, by definition, requesting an extension to Article 50.
An indecisive parliament is quite useless in parliamentary democracy if Brexit is consuming most of its time. It is perfect grounds for new elections and new elections are a good reason for extending Article 50.
Nonsense wrote:The remedy of course, is for parliament to act decisively, by, either delivering Leave, or agree to an election & suffer the consequences for not implementing Leave.
An indecisive parliament cannot act decisively.
Nonsense wrote:Your second proposition has been tried-tested within the existing referendum result, the 'options' have all been exhaustively rejected in parliament, whether that be MAY's 'soft' Brexit, [b]'hard' Brexit of 'no-deal'[/b], or Brexit 'by agreement' as per Theresa MAY's concoction & the only 'option' left, is the default one of leaving on 31 October 2019.
No, the parliament although indecisive, is quite certain it doesn't want a no deal Brexit on 31 October 2019, unless Boris Johnson decides to ignore the law and refuse to ask for an extension.
Nonsense wrote:Your final option of choosing [b]'the form of Brexit that won in the referendum'[/b](Leave), has been continuously thwarted by that body chosen to implement Brexit.
"Referendum always reflects will of the people, therefore it cannot be undemocratic regardless of how many times it is repeated".
The 'problem' is, having a second referendum is 'undemocratic', because the first referendum was democratic,so what you state above, is contradictory, because you say, no matter how many times it is repeated it cannot be undemocratic,but, you are not accepting it,even though it was democratic.
No, there is no contradiction in repeated referendums, similarly like there is nothing undemocratic about repeated votes in parliament on the same issue. Before a serious decision is taken, people may need to be asked multiple times, with sufficient time to think about it. That is a sign of responsible behaviour. Frustrated Brexiteers must calm down and accept that Brexit may even be never delivered. If parliament fails to approve any form of Brexit, the only remaining option is to revoke Article 50, despite the fury from Brexiteers.