Gary Lineker Says Blocking Brexit Is More Important To Him Than Football.

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5993241/Gary-Lineker-says-Brexit-important-football-calls-second-referendum.html

[ToraToraTora]

spath: "I do recall the first vote being some what of a "lets just see" vote.. Or was it always, this vote will be the ultimatum? " - did you read the leaflet that we all got from the government? It was a simple binary choice and it had a promise from the government of the day to implement the result. That's about as far away from a "lets' just see" as you can get mate.

[Kromovaracun]

To be fair to the guy, I struggle to think of anything that's *less important* than football...

[The_Rim_Greaper]

"
If it is more important to Mr Linekar perhaps he would do the decent thing and resign his vastly overpaid tax payer job with the BBC to concentrate on Brexit.

It is his job with the tax payer funded BBC which in my opinion is why he should shut up. "

and its made worse by the fact that the Blatantly Biased C@&$S are exactly that biased to the hilt and not just on Brexit, so he shouldnt be airing his worthless opinions via their social engineering meedjia platform...he really needs to be put in check and told to keep his opinions to men kicking a synthetic ball around for 90 minutes or so...

[anotheoldgit]

Zacs-Master

/// Here you go, AOG...... ///

Thanks for that Zacs, I put 'Modeller on 'referendums' in the search box and only came up with 2 threads, this one and one on Child Allowance, for you to come up with that one I think that you must be stalking me.

But back to that post, can't you see that "and we can't have that can we"? Was a sarcastic comment.

[Zacs-Master]

I thought the comment showed you to be very astute, AOG. I did say 'prophetic' and not 'pathetic'.

I was looking for something Modeller had sdaid previously and really did stumbel across yours. I made a mental not to post it at an appropriate time, which I thought was this thread.

[jim360]

I don't see how it's irrelevant. David Cameron lied to you -- to us -- repeatedly, be it about the purposes of the referendum, its consequences, or his own immediate future.

[youngmafbog]

As far as I remember he only lied about his immediate future.

He used Project Fear for the consequences, only one sided (the down side and doom) but not sure that is actually lying since nothing can be proved one way or another until things happen of course. Just that everything they said would happen didnt. Or they moved the goalposts continually.

[Garaman]

I am not in favour of a referendum asking whether we should still go ahead and leave when we know the terms, but there would be nothing undemocratic about it.

[naomi24]

Jim, He stated quite clearly “It’s a single decision, it’s a final decision”. Stop squirming around it.

Garaman, a second referendum would mean ignoring the result of the first … and that’s undemocratic.

[Canary42]

///a second referendum would mean ignoring the result of the first … and that’s undemocratic.///

Rubbish, the referendum was served by signing Article 50. Like May's vanity election, we now need a chance to provide a later opinion. Of course the Brextremists are running scared that their much-lauded Democracy may now not suit them.

[hereIam]

The vote to leave the EU WON, therefore we should leave!! Makes sense to me.

[naomi24]

Canary, squirm around it all you like. The fact is that because of your squirmers - and that includes Mrs May and the people who are supposed to be managing Brexit - democracy isn't being served. If dishonesty suits you, that's your business, but it doesn't suit me.

[Rockrose]

Yes brexit is all black and white

[gulliver1]

Good man , Think a second referendum is Immenent.

[hereIam]

I don't.

[Ellipsis]

People seem confused over the word "democracy".

We live in a democracy, so everything before the referendum was "democratic" and it would have also been "democratic" to not have a referendum. There's nothing to say that a referendum is more democratic than the way we normally arrive at decisions. You might ask yourself, in a future where voting was a lot more efficient, whether you'd be happier if every single issue was electronically decided by the people rather than your elected representatives. Sounds like a recipe for chaos to me ...

Reaching decisions by referendum is no more or less democratic than reaching decisions through a representative democracy - especially when lies were told throughout the referendum campaign (justified by "They were on both sides" - as if it cancels out!), electoral spending limits were breached it appears, and the percentage of the electorate that actually voted Leave was 37%.

This is not democracy. It's people whose ideology was troubled by the EU, throwing their toys out of the pram, kicking up a fuss, getting their referendum through a weak and feeble PM, lying and cheating their way to a "victory" that wouldn't be sufficient to change the rules at your average golf club, then insisting that victory meant one thing and only one thing as if the closeness of it and the 37% actual Leave vote meant nothing at all; as if democracy was not "the will of the people" as a whole but "the will of the 37%". That's closer to ochlocracy than democracy. Anyway, onwards into our golden future ...

[naomi24]

More ‘Newspeak’, this time from Ellipsis . I’m not confused about the word ‘democracy’ – and we’re not talking about membership of a golf club. The simple fact is had the result been reversed none of you would be saying any of this. Disingenuous doesn’t begin to cover it.

[Garaman]

//Garaman, a second referendum would mean ignoring the result of the first … and that’s undemocratic.//

No it isn't, it would mean asking the same people if they still wanted to go ahead now they have more detail... and that isn't undemocratic.

[Ellipsis]

Can't be bothered to look now, but you will find posts from me before the vote that said if the situation was reversed I would want another referendum in about 3 years i.e. 2019.

[jim360]

It's not squirming to point out that Cameron was a lying toerag (for want of a ruder word), and it's not squirming either to point out that a second referendum would be just as democratic as the first.* Indeed, one of the principles of a democracy is that a democracy can never be bound by what it decided in the past. Laws can be unmade, decisions can be undone, politicians can be un-elected. This holds explicitly in the case of parliament but it is -- or ought to be -- implicit in referendums also.

I could go on, but you're busy spinning a conspiracy theory again no doubt.

*And anyway, it's a *third* referendum on the EU issue.