No one wants to run the advisory referendum again. It’s certainly not binding. What people want is a final say on the deal. Now that the detail seems to be emerging about what Brexit might look like. That seems a sensible, democratic thing to do, in the national interest.
-
-
-
Excellent, no problem. As long as you don't extend this to include an option to remain. At that point it becomes a re-run.
-
No. It’s a question of whether the deal is in the national interest. Ofcthe whole UK. If not then we do not have to do it. Nor should we
-
We had the debate about the national interest, then we had the final decision.
-
No we had absolutely no detail on what Brexit would mean at all. In fact we had conflicting messages. Nothing should trump what’s in the national interest, of the whole UK, especially not an advisory referendum.
-
In whose opinion? 52% of people thought the national interest was best served by leaving the EU. Who are you to say that they are wrong?
-
100 per cent of those who voted and indeed those who didn’t, had no idea what the deal would look like. They were promised it would be easy. It’s clearly not as simple as Leave told you. Or should that be Cambridge Analytica. Lets have a fraudulent free final say
-
They weren't promised that it would be easy. We've been through this before. As remainers often say, "that wasn't on the ballot paper". People voted to leave, and leave we will.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I don't think people really understood what they were voting for. I'll try re-educating them for 21 months calling them racist bigots etc.. That should do it.
#FBPEThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
only 2718 people voted, 54% of 2718 is 1468, so out of 60 million people, that means 99.9% didn't vote for you.
-
Arh but the total should be those of the population on Twitter ie eligible to vote. You need to recalculate
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Shame! I think you would have won, Julia. You just have that edge on Isabel. Interesting there seem only to be 2 people in the running, though . . .
-
Second thoughts, perhaps it should be a walk over from
@IsabelOakeshott since you aren't actually Tory? Only one contender then?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm taking this to court as I don't believe legal process was correctly followed. Should soon have this whole sorry vote corrected. Erm, I mean checked properly...
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Would it have been claimed as “advisory only” by the same people if the result had been different?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@grumpyfred3 Just another toys out pram remoaner, peddling same old script
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It was 'advisory' because no govt can legislate what a future govt must legislate about but it does stipulate the govt of the day MUST enact the will of the people [words to that effect] so it is advice that the Govt MUST FOLLOW - simple really but beyond remoaners understanding
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I wasn't informed enough before the vote and Facebook brainwashed me. Can we keep voting until we get the result that that's acceptable?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Whos Nicola James?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Terrible thing when your government takes the electorates advice....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.