Brexited | the worst threads live the longest
- Thread starter Silva
- Start date
You cant have a secons election just because you dont like the vote. Thats not how it works.
A majority, albeit small voted leave, the leaders of the country should be getting the UK out whether they agree with it or not as well.
Even simple legislation has to go through 3 readings in the commons and then further scrutiny in the House of Lords. This is after all the detail is carefully laid out and reviewed by industry and civil service usually.
You're suggesting that a simple yes or no vote pre-facts is enough to not need any scrutiny or expert opinion, irrspective of it being the biggest change in decades. In fact you're going one further and saying those who decided the direction shouldn't at any point get to question if they still want to go that way either.
Have you any idea how moronic that sounds?
We voted this parliament in as per the fixed term parliament act in 2017.
You can’t keep having general elections to have the Parliament you want every 2 years.
I'm expecting another hung parliament this election and back to square one.
Perhaps more uncertainty and lack of clarity on what to do other than revoke A50 might just be good reason to call it off with no clear vision after 4 years.
Perhaps more uncertainty and lack of clarity on what to do other than revoke A50 might just be good reason to call it off with no clear vision after 4 years.
What would it say for democracy if we call a second vote on this?
No vote in the future will be able to be upheld again.
I could understand a vote on 3 different versions of leave for example and the people get to vote for which one they prefer. That is actually probably the right way of going about it.
But i can't get behind another yes or no stay or leave vote. That decision has been made.
I
Id go further and say david Cameron should have stayed and finished his job. It was his doing but he's left others to pick up the pieces
I don't agree with that either. Those in power should be working together to deliver what was voted for.
Id go further and say david Cameron should have stayed and finished his job. It was his doing but he's left others to pick up the pieces
This is the crux of the matter, consent of the losers is missing and after all the infighting that's taken place, it will be so for a long time.
We are heading for an American style politics whether we like it or not, and to the phrase "Every things fair in love and war" we can add... "and in Politics"
They pinched all my sweets. Damn Brexiteers.
How about we ask the EU for the ultimate BINO deal, we keep everything as is, just without MEPs?
What would it say for democracy if the UK was taken out of the EU on terms that would be opposed by a majority of the population? I totally understand opposition to a second referendum and opposition to referendums in general but the common framing of it as undemocratic is laughable. A second referendum will only happen if a majority is obtained in the upcoming election by parties who have stood on an explicit platform to implement a second referendum. The notion that it would therefore be undemocratic is simply untenable.
Well this time we might actually get something close to an informed democractic decision given the misinformation and outright lies that poisoned the last referendum.
You can't have a decision this important and consequential made with outright lies like "£350 million a week", "the easiest deal ever", "we hold all the cards", "no one is talking about leaving the single market", to the targeted ads on facebook about Turkey joining, fictitious EU armies, that we were going to lose our veto or be forced to join the euro and the rest of it.
If Labour won the general election and negotiated and agreed a new deal, also an if of course, then I would support a second referendum, but only if it included all four choices by single transferable vote. My personal choice might be 1) Remain, 2) Johnson's deal or May's, 3) No Deal, 4) The Labour deal, which I assume would contain freedom of movement. Now my purpose here isn't to justify my choice and answer questions on it, it's too hypothetical to waste my time on that, my purpose is to say that I and others should have the full choice of alternatives. I would not support a rigged second referendum with only two choices.
A mature democracy must surely be able to correct or revise a decision.
Whats to say it needs corrected? Whats to say every vote from now on doesnt need correction?
If we do this once, people will clamour for it at every vote
At every ill conceived referendum? Yes, yes they will.
Clearly a lot of lies were told. Nothing that was promised by the side that won has materialised.
You don’t think asking the people if they still want it despite all that is a reasonable position?
I wonder...before the referendum, was the public truly made aware of the possibility of the result becoming law?
The fact is was poisoned by lies, dark money and proven illegality.
Labour manifesto 2017 - "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union."
Out of date though. I'm more interested in what their new manifesto will say. How will they improve on the current deal without ending freedom of movement, or whether they still intend to end it, and what will be the choices be in their proposed second referendum.
Yes, the 2019 version may be different. However, the rest of his negotiated Brexit is the same as the 2017 version.
I'll take your word for it Paul, but my point isn't about the nature of any Labour deal, my point is that should there be a second referendum there should be choice between that deal, Remain, the Tory Deal, and No Deal.
Last edited:
If we remain (I don't think we will) it would be democratically acceptable to stand on a 3rd referendum at every general election from now until the end of time and have one if you got elected into government. It's how democracy works.
This is a new election it's quite within their rights to change policy.
Leavers would hate that as it would water down the leave vote.
Single transferable vote. It might come down to Tory Deal v Labour Deal, or Remain v No Deal, or one v the other, my point is that if there is a second referendum people should have the full range of choices, no rigging to give only two.
I don't have a problem with it.
Confusion as NO ONE turns up for 'huge' pro Brexit demo in Doncaster
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.u...35krnuPHbKwZprDqYsR4auC1KO9UV5PBGGvAc72w6eCWE
https://www.doncasterfreepress.co.u...35krnuPHbKwZprDqYsR4auC1KO9UV5PBGGvAc72w6eCWE
Yes, I understand your point. I just think it will be just reworded version of the last time and that won't be one of the choices.
Does that mean it was probably just as well Labour didn't win last time regarding Brexit? Waiting with bated breath for the new version.
Last edited:
Why would Labour negotiate their own deal and the add May's or Johnson's deal on the ballot?
Because their policy is to give people the choice. Note I also include no deal as one of the choices. It's generally acknowledged now that we are missing 'consent of the loser', and the way to deal with that is to give people all the options, not a restricted two, and demonstrate the result is as democratic as can be.
Because they know that their own deal (remaining in a magical customs union resplendent with unicorns where we benefit from all existing EU deals... Have a say over their future deals and also allow us to go out and negotiate our own deals) isnt actually possible... So the only deals that will exist in 3 months are Mays deal and Johnson's deal?
Last edited:
You didn't use the word Unicorn. That has genuinely cheered me up.
Who decides what 'all the choices' are? And is that Labour's offer, i.e. which of the following Brexits would you prefer? I thought they are offering a confirmatory (of their deal) referendum? Hence, if Labour win a majority they should have a mandate for that.
Maybe they won't achieve their exact preference, but surely a softer version of both May's and Johnson's deals is realistic?
There is obvious substantial support for Remain and No Deal, Corbyn's deal would be that of an elected government as you say, just as the Tory deal is. A general election isn't just about brexit, if it was you wouldn't need a second referendum in the first place.
How would a referendum of limited choices generate consent of the losers? Many would say what they wanted wasn't given as an option, which is how we got into this mess in the first place.
Thanks... Edited and fixed
My initial thought was along these lines. But I've since been convinced that finding option for the second referendum will be difficult. In your example there is only 1 in 4 remain options. Surely this bill would be hard to get everyone to agree on?
I'm not sure lack of losers' consent got us to here. May's deal would have passed if it had had the consent of all of the winners, i.e. Brexiteers. Failing that, she could have compromised sufficiently to pass a deal acceptable to some remainers and most Brexiteers. We got to here because of Brexiteers kept shifting the goalposts towards a harder and harder version of Brexit and May's failure to reach out to the losers.
Regarding the election, if Tories win, we will exit with their deal. They will claim disingenuously that it is the 'will of the people', even if it most likely has no majority in the country. Presumably, the losers - remainers and soft Brexiteers among them- will have no choice but to consent to it.
Comapred to that, I think Labour's offer is likelier to get wide acceptance amongst the electorate.