Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote". That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please answer Yes or No.
"The ONS figures for 2015 suggest the UK’s gross contribution to the EU, before the cash rebate received by the UK, totalled £19.6 billion – or about £376 million a week. "
> Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote".
Yes. You seem to not have either read or understood that point.
> That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please answer Yes or No.
Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and undemocratic as you've already read, hopefully three times now. Maybe you can ingest that information, process it and even respond if you'd like to rebut it.
Yes, before the cash rebate it was ~£350M/week (or £376M/week according to this). Which boris used without accounting for the rebate which would have brought it down to considerably less.
He lied and you seem ok with it.
> Yes. However having a second referendum is spectacularly dangerous and undemocratic as you've already read
So Yes, people can change their mind, you allow, but no they shouldn't have a 2nd vote, you say, despite the fact they may have changed their mind.
So what am I supposed to conclude from that?
IMO it's problematic either way, but if we had a 2nd referendum at least "the will of the people" would be clearer. Which may give us a way forwards, which I proposed as a compromise, but you are trying to shut down.
I mentioned why the EU having control of our money is bad in a previous post you responded to and didn't read.
There is no compromise. We lost. Asking people to vote a second time before disrespects the first referendum. I have explained this a fourth time. I'm blocking you now. You'll say it's because you're making amazing points, but actually it's because you're talking to yourself.
> > "The ONS figures for 2015 suggest the UK’s gross contribution to the EU, before the cash rebate received by the UK, totalled £19.6 billion – or about £376 million a week. "
> "True but irrelevant. Boris lied".
I mentioned you were having a discussion with yourself earlier, but thanks for providing an example.
You seem shaky on a number of things - are you a UK resident?
OK, to answer your point https://metro.co.uk/2017/04/27/heres-how-spectacularly-wrong...
"Just in case you hadn’t already cottoned on, the number plastered on the side of the Brexit bus was a big fat lie.
[...]
According to the new official estimates, the UK actually makes a net contribution to the EU of around £199 million a week."
So BloJo lied. Do you find it acceptable for a politician to lie to you?
> That the EU returns 150 of it doesn't change that the EU is determining how the UK spend the UK's money and then takes half of it for the EU.
True but irrelevant. Boris lied. That was my point. The ONS doesn't come into it.
Me: >> Are people not allowed to change view in the light of new information?
You: > See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21060090
Just points me back to your earlier post which says "That sets a terrible precedent: lose a vote, use every resource you can to thwart implementing the outcome, get a second vote". That doesn't answer the question so let me try again, same question, please answer Yes or No.
reply