May姐宣布6月7日辭職

成身好多毛 2019-05-24 20:32:56

以為係呢個

96夏榮 2019-05-24 20:35:50

英國佬

精到龜頭自然射 2019-05-24 20:48:09

Theresa May 搞唔掂都會引咎辭職，屌你個垃圾Theresa Cheng 柒撚咗咁多獲都仲串串貢，食撚屎啦

天水圍漿 2019-05-24 20:49:46

走得好決斷

利維亞傑洛特 2019-05-24 21:18:07

民主唔係咁㗎，輸打贏要？

咸濕保姆賤嬰兒 2019-05-24 21:18:46

睇到咸左

伏羽忍冬 2019-05-24 21:23:04

咪搞笑啦

我地回顧一下脫歐領由Farage係公投前講過乜:

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

「僅輸相當於未解決, 要投多次, 大勝就當然唔洗再投」

最後結果: 51.89 - 48.11

Farage? 水已笠, 口都反埋, 話唔洗再投

賽前就話留歐險勝要投第二次, 可以話第二次公投本身就係計劃入面, 意外羸左之後當無講過

一個唔夠? ok

Dominic Cumming, Vote Leave運動搞手之一, 睇下佢自己點講

https://dominiccummings.com/2015/06/23/on-the-referendum-6-exit-plans-and-a-second-referendum/

Should NO demand a second referendum in the hope of forcing the parties to commit to one?

One can see why NO might argue for a second vote. It enables NO to make a NO vote seem much less risky. ‘If you vote YES, you won’t get another vote for another 40 years – if ever. You should vote NO to Cameron’s rubbish deal. If you vote NO, you will force a new Government to negotiate a new deal and give you a new vote. A NO vote is much safer than a YES vote.’ Further, as a matter of democratic accountability, given the enormous importance of so many issues that would be decided in an Article 50 renegotiation – a far, far bigger deal than a normal election – it seems right to give people a vote on it.

(...)

Expanding the debate to consider a second negotiation and a second referendum offers potential advantages. It also has potential disadvantages. But as a matter of fact a NO vote does not mean we would immediately leave and it seems likely that the parties will be forced by public opinion to offer a second vote, and therefore this could be turned to the advantage of NO. There is no escape from the fact that ending the legal supremacy of EU law is an extremely complex enterprise, unravelling decades of legislation, legal judgements, and practice. There is no scenario in which all the problems caused by the EU can be solved in one swift stroke.

個搞手直頭預脫歐贏左會投第二次, 所以應該投NO, 增加談判籌碼

仲有仲有

Michael Portillo, 前保守黨內閣國防大臣, 現BBC主持人, 脫歐支持者, 睇下佢點講?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94iVd2x7EO0

"...What would happened would be what's happened in most European referendums where the vote has turned out the wrong way from the point of view of the establishment, that there would be a further re-negotiation, there will be a further referendum, a chance for the people to get it right the second time. Now if you accept this what I think is a fairly common sense point of view, of course the only ration thing to do is to vote to leave, because at that point do you get a proper re-negotiation and the possibility of a proper settlement."

佢叫人投NO, 因為佢認為根據歐洲慣例, 政府一旦輸左會出第二次公投, 等大家可以再諗諗傾傾, 所以大家應該投NO先, 咁先夠增加到UK嘅籌碼

Michael Howard, 前Tory黨魁, 脫歐支持者

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/eureferendum/12173888/Michael-Howard-David-Camerons-reform-bid-has-failed-its-time-to-go.html

There is only one thing that just might shake Europe’s leaders out of their complacency: the shock of a vote by the British people to leave.

(...)

If the UK voted to leave, there would be a significant chance that they would ask us to think again. When Ireland and Denmark voted to reject EU proposals, the EU offered them more concessions and, second time round, got the result they wanted.

預左脫歐贏會好大機會有第二次公投, 所以應該投NO, 投NO係戰略性談判手段,等EU出好啲offer, UK政府有更多牙力同EU傾

以上全部係公投前嘅紀錄

圍她G奶 2019-05-24 22:14:14