Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[Sweet Square]

One referendum is democracy, but another referendum isn't democracy?

The last general election came like a year after the last one... No one complained that that wasn't democracy.

What?

I wasn't arguing that, I even said the best chance for remain is a 2nd referendum. I saying was it would be un-democratic to just stop brexit.

 

[Massive Spanner]

Don't underestimate the seriousness betraying the will of the people.

If there's a second referendum you are still following the will of the people.

 

[sun_tzu]

What about the ECJ looking at Britain's potential right to unilaterally repeal Article 50. I've not heard to much about it, is it pie in the sky?

There is a court case I believe.... Not sure if there will even be a ruling before A50 expires... Even if there is then I assume any appeal would certainly take longer than the a50 timeframe

Edit 27th November apparently... Though there is an appeal by the UK government to prevent the case being heard

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-46236762

 

[afrocentricity]

If there's a second referendum you are still following the will of the people.

Thank you. I thought we got past the whole 'will of the people' schtick....

 

[sun_tzu]

If there's a second referendum you are still following the will of the people.

Your statement and that of vidic are not antithetical
Calling a 2nd referendum would I believe be taken very badly by some who voted to leave before
I would expect to see a march at least as big and probably bigger than the peoples vote march calling for the first referendum result to be implemented (i.e. leaving)

I voted to remain... I would do so again (though I do not expect to have the opportunity to do so even though I hope it happens)... I would in future most probably vote to rejoin even if that meant no rebate and taking the euro.

Yet I still see big problems with massive disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the electorate if there is a 2nd vote

 

[GloryHunter07]

Don't underestimate the seriousness betraying the will of the people.

Do you think May's deal is the "will of the people"?

 

[MoskvaRed]

Would there balls be anarchy. Since when were the English supposedly this nation of revolutionaries? We put up with most things by doing nothing more than grumble when other nationalities would be out on the streets. Yet we’re supposed to believe that in the case of a second referendum millions of leavers whose deep political engagement with Brexit is generally summed up by ‘just get on with it’ are going to be rioting in the streets? Bollocks. There would be a few protest marches and lots of whining in the Daily Mail comments section and feck all else.

At the end of the day a second referendum is an added chance to have a choice. People aren’t about to burn down cities because they were given too much democracy.

It’s just a line used by Brexiteers who fear (correctly) that 23 June 2016 was their one shot at the title and that the chances of a repeat victory for Leave are extremely remote indeed.

 

[Kentonio]

Don't underestimate the seriousness betraying the will of the people.

Betraying the will of the people by asking the people again if they’re sure? Not sure that computes. If it’s still the will of the people, then Leave should win again comfortably shouldn’t it? Isn’t that the very definition of ‘will of the people’? If they vote Remain, then leave is clearly no longer the will of the people.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Do you think May's deal is the "will of the people"?

I heard the 'will of the people' was to leave the EU which is exactly what the UK will do on March 29. Some people are never happy.

 

[Silva]

Don't underestimate the seriousness betraying the will of the people.

this is actually the major positive of cancelling brexit without a second referendum, so many pensioners will accidentally kill themselves trying to protest that it will become impossible for the tories to win an election for 2-3 generations

 

[Tarrou]

What is the point of a second vote at this point? It is so obviously a terrible idea lets just cancel the whole thing.

If leave somehow still want to leave they can come up with a realistic plan and we'll vote on that in the future - but they've had two years and failed to provide anything close to a coherent plan. It's time to abort.

 

[Ubik]

Betraying the will of the people by asking the people again if they’re sure? Not sure that computes. If it’s still the will of the people, then Leave should win again comfortably shouldn’t it? Isn’t that the very definition of ‘will of the people’? If they vote Remain, then leave is clearly no longer the will of the people.

But democracy.

 

[afrocentricity]

It’s just a line used by Brexiteers who fear (correctly) that 23 June 2016 was their one shot at the title and that the chances of a repeat victory for Leave are extremely remote indeed.

Nailed it...

Although I won't go at far as saying extremely remote...

 

[Raees]

Your statement and that of vidic are not antithetical
Calling a 2nd referendum would I believe be taken very badly by some who voted to leave before
I would expect to see a march at least as big and probably bigger than the peoples vote march calling for the first referendum result to be implemented (i.e. leaving)

I voted to remain... I would do so again (though I do not expect to have the opportunity to do so even though I hope it happens)... I would in future most probably vote to rejoin even if that meant no rebate and taking the euro.

Yet I still see big problems with massive disenfranchisement of huge swathes of the electorate if there is a 2nd vote

What is worse... ignoring the (more rational, workable and pragmatic) opinions of what may now a majority out of some flimsy notion that this was a once in a lifetime vote - or overturning the irrational, unworkable opinions of what may now form the minority.

Personally if Brexit was logistically doable and only caused a limited degree of short term pain - I could accept being bound by it, but it is simply a farce and not doable at all especially not with the Tories at the helm.

Second referendum is the best opportunity to get ourselves out of this mess and to hell with whoever voted out in the first place I say. THey've had two years to try and make their decision work and it has proven to be a joke. Enough is enough.

 

[Jippy]

What is the point of a second vote at this point? It is so obviously a terrible idea lets just cancel the whole thing.

If leave somehow still want to leave they can come up with a realistic plan and we'll vote on that in the future - but they've had two years and failed to provide anything close to a coherent plan. It's time to abort.

Here hear. If only May felt like this.

 

[Kentonio]

What is the point of a second vote at this point? It is so obviously a terrible idea lets just cancel the whole thing.

If leave somehow still want to leave they can come up with a realistic plan and we'll vote on that in the future - but they've had two years and failed to provide anything close to a coherent plan. It's time to abort.

It has to be done democratically, otherwise the EU won’t accept it. They were clear about that.

 

[afrocentricity]

It has to be done democratically, otherwise the EU won’t accept it. They were clear about that.

Yes you gotta go 2nd ref on final decision, and whatever happens we accept it, stfu and 'get on with it'

 

[vidic blood & sand]

If there's a second referendum you are still following the will of the people.

Of course.

 

[vidic blood & sand]

Do you think May's deal is the "will of the people"?

No

 

[vidic blood & sand]

It’s just a line used by Brexiteers who fear (correctly) that 23 June 2016 was their one shot at the title and that the chances of a repeat victory for Leave are extremely remote indeed.

No that's nonsense. To overturn a democratic vote is very serious. There's nothing wrong in having a second vote, and if remain wins, then the result should be honoured by leavers. However, that doesn't stop people being against EU membership.

 

[Massive Spanner]

No that's nonsense. To overturn a democratic vote is very serious. There's nothing wrong in having a second vote, and if remain wins, then the result should be honoured by leavers. However, that doesn't stop people being against EU membership.

They're not overturning anything. Brexiteers have had two and a half years to try leave the EU (as they promised) and the most they seem to be able to muster is a deal that will effectively mean the UK don't really leave yet still end up worse off. Why shouldn't people get another vote now that it's so apparent that nothing has turned out remotely like what they were promised back in 2016.

And lest we forget that leave won by less than 2%. It's not like it was a resounding victory that represented the overwhelming "will of the people" as you say. I see nothing controversial about putting the vote to the people again 30 months after it barely passed.

In Ireland we rejected the Lisbon treaty and then had another vote 14 months later that was accepted because only after we originally voted no did it become apparent exactly what we were doing by voting no. What's the difference to this? It's not even a vote that amends your constitution!

 

[vidic blood & sand]

They're not overturning anything. Brexiteers have had two and a half years to try leave the EU (as they promised) and the most they seem to be able to muster is a deal that will effectively mean the UK don't really leave yet still end up worse off. Why shouldn't people get another vote now that it's so apparent that nothing has turned out remotely like what they were promised back in 2016.

And lest we forget that leave won by less than 2%. It's not like it was a resounding victory that represented the overwhelming "will of the people" as you say. I see nothing controversial about putting the vote to the people again 30 months after it barely passed.

In Ireland we rejected the Lisbon treaty and then had another vote 14 months later that was accepted because only after we originally voted no did it become apparent exactly what we were doing by voting no. What's the difference to this? It's not even a vote that amends your constitution!

The train of discussion was to do with someone who mentioned a possible revoke of article 50. This couldn't just be done by overturning the democratic vote.
And as I said, there's nothing wrong with having another vote. I'm all for it. If the majority of people in the UK now want to remain in the EU especially after the government's shambolic attempts at trying to get a deal, now is the time to put the question back out there.

 

[Massive Spanner]

The train of discussion was to do with someone who mentioned a possible revoke of article 50. This couldn't just be done by overturning the democratic vote.
And as I said, there's nothing wrong with having another vote. I'm all for it. If the majority of people in the UK now want to remain in the EU especially after the government's shambolic attempts at trying to get a deal, now is the time to put the question back out there.

Ah ok, fair enough. That I'd agree with.

 

[Ubik]

I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

 

[vidic blood & sand]

I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

No that's not possible, they don't read the Guardian.

 

[Cheesy]

I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.

 

[Ubik]

You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.

Raab is apparently now one of the favourites to take over from May. Someone who recently said he'd only just realised how important Dover-Calais is to trade.

We're genuinely screwed.

 

[Silva]

You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.

This isn't a new phenomenon. Politicians have always been the crop of the upper classes who were too thick to take over daddy's business. What's happened in recent times is that the "respect the leaders" bootlicking has started to crumble and their idiocy is on open display.

 

[RedChip]

Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.

 

[sun_tzu]

Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.

To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

 

[Sweet Square]

Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.

They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.

 

[Ubik]

To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

AV ref had a supermajority for No, 75 single market ref got a supermajority for yes. Indyref was a ten point win for No and that's not ended the discussion. EUref was a 3.78 point win for leave and has caused a pretty much unrelenting mentalness for two and a half years, so I think this one has a decent argument for re-running compared to the others.

US democracy is a basket case in a lot of ways, but I think requiring constitutional changes to face a bigger hurdle than pure majority consent is looking quite well justified.

 

[Stactix]

They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.

Then they're fecking idiots.

 

[Cheesy]

They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.

Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.

 

[Ubik]

Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.

Not that strange at all when you think about it.

 

[RedChip]

Ft

They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.

 

[Cheesy]

Ft

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.

Polling on the EU is a weird one, looking back through it. Generally Remain was ahead (especially after 2015 when the Tories won the election and said they'd hold a referendum) but there were periods when leaving appeared to have a lot of support. One Survation poll from November 2014 had Leave winning 54-31! That was probably an anomaly but plenty of others in the same period did indicate strong sentiment for leaving.

 

[sun_tzu]

US democracy is a basket case in a lot of ways, but I think requiring constitutional changes to face a bigger hurdle than pure majority consent is looking quite well justified.

Indeed a threshold would seem logical...

That said if the government said look clearly we have learned our lesson from the last referendum and therefore we are inserting a minimum majority of 60% (or 66% or 75% etc) must vote to remain this time or we carry out the vote from the first referendum and leave 29th march regardless Then I'm sure that would be seen as unfair by the remain side?

Sadly it's a divisive issue and the more it's discussed the more entrenched Most opinions seem to become

I honestly can't even think of a question that would be accepted by both sides at the mlment

 

[sullydnl]

Ft

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.

Really? Leaving aside the UK's longstanding euroscepticism, UKIP actually came third, then second, then first in European elections between 2004 and 2014. The UK then willfully voted for a party & leader that was promising a referendum. That's hardly no voter movement. If people vote for things then those things might happen.

 

[RedChip]

To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom

Agree with this but also think Brexit is a special case and it was only a marginal majority. Given how consequential Brexit will be, it seems crazy that the electorate cannot be given a second chance to confirm if this is what they really want. Is this how democracy is intended to work? You get one chance and one chance only? If you should regret your choice, tough.