On 25/09/2019 15:11, Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Incubus wrote:
On 2019-09-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
That you try to insist that somehow the referendum is different from
ordinary elections in that the pre-election bumf must be 100% accurate
and must be complete and cover all possible eventualities. Only a fool
would expect that.

You don't see any difference between a once in a lifetime decision, and
one which can be reversed every 5 years or less?

Just how many instances in a lifetime would we have to vote on this
issue, then? If once isn't even, would two get the job done? What if
people say things that Snopes disagrees with? Will there then be a
third?

The job has been done. So no need for a second referendum. Unless
parliament can't agree on a deal. And a decent deal is what leave promised.

Indeed, the only acceptable referendum in my view is one that contains the
choices of leave with the deal that has been negotiated or leave without it.

It's the only logical one that honours the result of the referendum, and
does not merely re-run it.