I was fully aware we might leave with no deal.Imploding Turtle wrote:It gave two choices but the reality is that there weren't two possibilities. As has been said ad nauseam, but i'll repeat it for you, no one knew what Leave meant. No one. Not even the Leave campaigns had a clue. So how can you possibly know that if Leaving meant leaving with no deal that that referendum result would still have been a win for Leave? I think there are a lot of Leave voters who if they knew that Leaving the EU meant leaving without a deal then they wouldn't have voted to Leave in the first place, and we should find that out. Why shouldn't we? The leave campaigns all campaigned on the idea that there'd be some kind fo deal that mitigates the disaster of leaving.
I've asked this a bunch of times and i still await a worthwhile answer (just "but mah will of the peepul"), but why shouldn't we double check with the public that the Leave deal/no deal is really what we want right before we do it? This is supposed to be about honouring the will of the people so what possible harm can it do to check with us that it's really what we want right before we cut off our own nuts?
If the public still want to leave then we'll say so, and the next day we withdraw, job done. And if we don't want to leave then i'm sure you'll agree that it's a good job we double checked, right? Because "will of the people".
I'm convinced that the only reason Leave voters are opposed to the referendum is that they're really worried that what they want is no longer what the public wants, and so they're trying to get it done against the will of the public. I can't think of many things more undemocratic than that.
The remain campaign told us time and time again.
I'm quite sure you did too.