Re-vote. The first one was a fraud.
The EU should just tell the English to roll with Article 50 or revoke it. This extend-the-debate theater is absurd. What would change? What would another few months win for May?
If I were negotiating for Europe instead of someone perhaps wiser, I would insist that any extension be large ā something like 2-5 years. Donāt let the Brits keep this thing dangling off the ledge forever. They can hard Brexit now or actually have time for a deal or for the Brexit population to age out and for this stupid calamity to just get canceled.
Hereās to postponement and eventually to remain. The madness has to stop.
What was that old definition of insanity again?
Better idea ā tell the referendum to pound sand because thatās not how law is made in the United Kingdom. If those in favor of leaving the EU wish to propose a different plan, let them campaign for it in Parliamentary elections and attempt to win a majority in that body, because that is how law is made in the United Kingdom.
The EU doesnāt want this to happen at all. So any delay improves the chances of enough business outcry in Britain forcing a Peopleās Referendum or an outright cancellation.
And enforcing the hard line could have the backlash of normal psychology, āstep over this line!ā and lead to a no-deal Brexit.
People keep asking that question over and over, itās crazy! 
I believe it goes along the lines of, āIf enemy forces infiltrate a Democratic process illegally and influence the outcome, then the Democracies shall move forward as if the decision rendered is entirely legitimate despite evidence to the contraryā
āretiree Mary Simpson said she felt that her voice as a āleaveā voter had not been heard.ā
You were heard, angry old white lady. Itās just that what you said proved so unworkably stupid and damaging that it couldnāt be accomplished.
Putin likes Brexit. Really. He wants a weaker EU.
Putin likes Trump. Really. He wants a weaker US and NATO.
Why do you suppose Putin put so much Russian effort into influencing the Brexit vote and the US elections? Because it benefits him. Hell, he wins just by creating turmoil. The outcome is a bonus.
Tee hee, hee!
I mean, uh, I remain deeply concerned about the future of the United Kingdom and urge all the parties to work together.
Nicely done, sir.
Let alone why should a woman likely just a few years off of death get to vote on a permanent change for her country, but a youth who will live for decades in that new reality is left out?
The cyber age exposes an assumption about voting that is probably wrong. The assumption is that people will make a reasonable effort to overcome the Law of Indifference, which says that in a vacuum of zero data points the odds of choosing a correct direction are 50%. As soon as real data points are added into the mix indifference is no longer an option. However, as people live low-information lives about candidates and policy, even a few wrong pieces of data can overcome indifference. The most commonly googled question after the Brexit vote was āWhat is the EU?ā 3 million low-information voters, people who had never voted in their lives, came out for Brexit. Many thought it was about stopping brown people. In fact, it was about doing something never seen in the history of the EU or common market. These are the same secret silos of voters that Jared and Steve Bannon were so hot about. Itās like the discovery of a Bradley Effect amplifier.
Given that Brexit is the UKās version of our 2016 election, and it seems like thereās a path to not doing it, why is May pushing so hard on something that is obviously not wanted except by Russians and their stooges?
Is she the UK equivalent of a Trump swamp creature?
One of the very strong reasons why you shouldnāt leave important things to the āwisdomā of the massesā¦