To leave the other party has to go along and agree to whatever deal is decided. They're not.

The reason it's taking so long is there are various issues to be decided which neither side really wants to budge on. The north Ireland border, UK's monetary obligations, few of the big ones.

I agree that there are several issues that nobody wants to budge on. The fact is that nobody wants a border with Northern Ireland and the proponents also want a hard brexit. Those two things are fundamentally at odds with each other and so there is not a possible resolution, even if we give the hard brexit camp complete control they wouldn't put a border with Northern Ireland.

So we're pretty much stuck with an impossible set of goals and it's not the fault of anybody who wanted to remain, it's the fault of the people campaigning for leave since they didn't put any specifics into the referendum or make any plans for the leaving process

Doing this would just split the Leave vote and Remain will win 10/10 times. It's like if the Democrats got split up between the far left progressive and the centrist/neocon types. Those two parties would never win because the Republicans would be killing them even with 40% support.

This post was edited by ofthevoid on Oct 6 2019 07:58pm

Which is why he went into the discussion of different voting systems

In other words, fuck what the people want. God damn you're a piece of work lol.

the referendum is non-binding. but it would obviously be career suicide for almost half of MPs to oppose the majority opinion on Brexit in their respective constituencies.
so if a majority of MPs considered brexit to be as gloom and doom as we constantly hear, then they wouldnt hesitate to take this sacrifice for the greater good of their country - that is, unless they are just a bunch of selfish cowards.

I weren't you just telling me about rule of law? How about you stay consistent. If a referendum is non-binding it means that it won't necessarily be carried out. The vote was set up this way for a reason and agreed to by all sides

If you want an accurate reflection of what people want you make consequences for what people want, you don't go out of your way to say that it isn't a binding vote.

obviously, we would need to use ranked choice voting in such a scenario with 3 distinct and viable options to choose from, and not a plurality-takes-all system as in US elections. this is a given. my post elaborated on the fact that even with ranked choice voting, you might get undesirable outcomes.

again: the referendum technically is non-binding. but the obvious political realities turn it into something which is de facto binding.

So you want to ignore a legit referendum held by the populous and then bash them for DARING to expect their referendum to mean something. Are you REALLY on the side of democracy here?

Also, what's this "rule of law" shit about? Was there some referendum on Trump that I missed?