Democracy and Brexit

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:55 am

Apologies for not posting this on the other thread, but it relates to one specific issue rather than the more general discussion. I have seen a number of statements to the effect that holding a second referendum on Brexit would be 'undemocratic' and I was thinking about that in relation to democracy in ancient Athens, which was democracy by referendum rather than representative democracy.

It was the case that voting rights were extended to only about 30% of the adult population, but that still meant that government decisions were made and could be changed by means of regular referendums. The assemblies attended by voting citizens were held ten times a year and on each occasion votes were taken on ongoing government policies. That meant that a decision could be taken at one assembly and then amended or changed at the next.

We might regard this system as unwieldy and impractical but it was not undemocratic as at each stage the people were given the right to vote. So once the decision had been taken to use referendum democracy on the brexit issue, I don't see why a second, third or fourth referendum would be undemocratic. It would be problematic and dysfunctional, which is why we use representative democracy, but it would it in fact be more democratic than the once only recourse to referendum democracy.

We might say that the result of the first referendum was not implemented, but the attempt was certainly made to do so. So a statement along the lines of 'This is where we are up to, these are the problems we encounter, so what should we do now?' would appear to be a continuation of that purer form of democracy.

Pstotto · Post by **Pstotto** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:07 am

English nationals born here only, allowed to vote and no women.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:11 am

Considering the majority of our MPs want to overturn the referendum result this second referendum is only being used as a vehicle to do just that.

There are MPs now letting the mask slip by saying they would ignore a second leave result anyway

Bosscat · Post by **Bosscat** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:13 am

Right_winger wrote:Considering the majority of our MPs want to overturn the referendum result this second referendum is only being used as a vehicle to do just that.

There are MPs now letting the mask slip by saying they would ignore a second leave result anyway

They would demand a 3rd and 4th vote ad infinitum ....

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:15 am

This could of been discussed on the other threads, and I'm fairly sure it has been.
I'm not trying to be funny, but I can understand peoples frustrations at multiple Brexit threads

Erasmus · Post by **Erasmus** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:17 am

Yes, those wanting it are not in favour for reasons of democracy but want a different outcome, and referendum democracy is by its nature dysfunctional. But these points don't make a second referendum undemocratic.

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:17 am

We probably have the technology to do online voting referenda and restore the Greek model of direct democracy.

Whether that's a good idea or not is another question entirely.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:34 am

If the second, third and fourth referendums are there for the purposes of "keep trying till you get it right", then there's no democracy. If the government will only implement referendum decisions they agree with, then that's not democracy.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:35 am

Erasmus wrote:Apologies for not posting this on the other thread, but it relates to one specific issue rather than the more general discussion. I have seen a number of statements to the effect that holding a second referendum on Brexit would be 'undemocratic' and I was thinking about that in relation to democracy in ancient Athens, which was democracy by referendum rather than representative democracy.

It was the case that voting rights were extended to only about 30% of the adult population, but that still meant that government decisions were made and could be changed by means of regular referendums. The assemblies attended by voting citizens were held ten times a year and on each occasion votes were taken on ongoing government policies. That meant that a decision could be taken at one assembly and then amended or changed at the next.

We might regard this system as unwieldy and impractical but it was not undemocratic as at each stage the people were given the right to vote. So once the decision had been taken to use referendum democracy on the brexit issue, I don't see why a second, third or fourth referendum would be undemocratic. It would be problematic and dysfunctional, which is why we use representative democracy, but it would it in fact be more democratic than the once only recourse to referendum democracy.

We might say that the result of the first referendum was not implemented, but the attempt was certainly made to do so. So a statement along the lines of 'This is where we are up to, these are the problems we encounter, so what should we do now?' would appear to be a continuation of that purer form of democracy.

Good points but I think you touched on the main problem and that is the first decision has not been implemented and the reason for that is that too many politicians are putting their own agenda before that of the electorate. It has also been argued ad nauseam by the remain side that 'we were lied to'. This is a fallacious argument because politics is, by it's very nature, beset with lies and half truths, you could say the same about any general election but we don't demand a re-run if we don't get the government we want (and no government in this country ever gets 50% of the popular vote). Yes, the Brexit campaign did probably include lies and half truths but so did the remain campaign (remember the outrageous and somewhat laughable lies that were told in what became known as 'project fear'). Are the remain side so naive as to imagine that if we had another referendum we would not get the same thing all over again? Do we feel any better informed now than we did the first time? Have the lies and half truths stopped? No of course they haven't and to think otherwise would be just plain ridiculous. And then we have the new LibDem leader vowing to fight Brexit at all costs, something that a vote was taken on and a result achieved and which has not yet been acted upon and the results therefore not analysed, this from a party that arrogantly has the word Democrat in it's title. 40 odd years ago I and millions of others voted against joining the then Common Market (a different beast altogether than it is now) and as such I have never voted in a Euro election (and never will I whatever happens), but what we didn't do is start making demands and wanting re-runs, we never went on about it ad nauseam because we didn't get the result we wanted (and I was a political activist then and actually campaigned door to door amongst other things), we simply ACCEPTED that the majority of people who voted wanted 'in' and that was the end of it.

Sorry to have posted on 'another' Brexit thread but the OP I always find puts things in perspective and tries to be even handed in his approach. As always with Brexit I will not be drawn into a slanging match and this will be my only word on this for now, make of it what you will.

Paulclaret · Post by **Paulclaret** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 11:44 am

I voted Remain, but I accept the result of the referendum to leave the EU. However, the question on the referendum was not to leave without a deal. Therefore, the current situation should be put to the country in another referendum. There shouldn't be an option to Remain, they should just be whether you support leaving either with or without a deal. I can't believe that the majority of the country want to leave without a deal that could cause tremendous damage to the economy.

Hipper · Post by **Hipper** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:23 pm

I too voted Remain but accept the result. I would also view us not leaving as a failure of our democracy.

However, whilst I'm reasonably well read on these matters I never considered, and I don't recall it being discussed at the time of the referendum, the virtually intractable Irish border question which is it, seems to me the main reason why we haven't reached an agreement by now. This may be in part because of Theresa May's disastrous election which led to the DUP having a bigger say then we might want, but the border problem would still exist regardless of this.

For that reason, even though I don't like it, I can understand the calls for another referendum.

Despite all the above, it seems to me that this whole Brexit business is hampering this country getting on with more important issues, particularly global warming (but also air quality etc.). As such I might be OK if a government were to postpone Brexit for five years or so whilst we attend to the Parliamentary declared 'Climate Emergency'.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:01 pm

The first referendum was won on the promise that there would be a deal. That clearly cannot happen. So there's nothing wrong with going back to the public and asking "Do you want a No Deal Brexit, or No Brexit?" And if the answer is "No Deal Brexit" then we can leave the next day. There's no need to wait, and this does away with stupid people whining and bitching about 3rd and 4th referendums.

Further, if we decide "No Brexit" then those same stupid people can still demand more referendums in future, because they're hypocrites and it would be unfair to proceed with a course of actions where these hypocrites were unable to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:09 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The first referendum was won on the promise that there would be a deal. That clearly cannot happen. So there's nothing wrong with going back to the public and asking "Do you want a No Deal Brexit, or No Brexit?" And if the answer is "No Deal Brexit" then we can leave the next day. There's no need to wait, and this does away with stupid people whining and bitching about 3rd and 4th referendums.

Further, if we decide "No Brexit" then those same stupid people can still demand more referendums in future, because they're hypocrites and it would be unfair to proceed with a course of actions where these hypocrites were unable to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

Your ballot paper looked very different to mine.

Paulclaret · Post by **Paulclaret** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:11 pm

"The first referendum was won on the promise that there would be a deal. That clearly cannot happen."

Of course it can happen, a deal was already agreed by May's government (whether it was a good one is debatable, but there was a deal). Johnson should go back to the EU and whatever the result of those meetings, the deal on offer should then be put to the country in a referendum. Deal or No Deal! It would help to stop the likes of the DUP holding the rest of the country to ransom.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:17 pm

Paulclaret wrote:"The first referendum was won on the promise that there would be a deal. That clearly cannot happen."

Of course it can happen, a deal was already agreed by May's government (whether it was a good one is debatable, but there was a deal). Johnson should go back to the EU and whatever the result of those meetings, the deal on offer should then be put to the country in a referendum. Deal or No Deal! It would help to stop the likes of the DUP holding the rest of the country to ransom.

The problem with that deal is that everybody dislikes it.

The parties who have consistently voted against it:

Labour
Liberal Democrat
Change UK
SNP
Plaid Cymru
DUP
Green

and the party which has voted in favour was the Conservatives, but under the new leadership Conservative policy is to oppose it.

So why put a deal which nobody likes to the referendum? And where on the ballot paper did it say that we would only leave if the EU would agree the terms of leaving?

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:The first referendum was won on the promise that there would be a deal. That clearly cannot happen. So there's nothing wrong with going back to the public and asking "Do you want a No Deal Brexit, or No Brexit?" And if the answer is "No Deal Brexit" then we can leave the next day. There's no need to wait, and this does away with stupid people whining and bitching about 3rd and 4th referendums.

Further, if we decide "No Brexit" then those same stupid people can still demand more referendums in future, because they're hypocrites and it would be unfair to proceed with a course of actions where these hypocrites were unable to demonstrate their hypocrisy.

Hate to break it to you sunshine but no Brexit or “remain” has already been defeated and knocked into the long grass. It is not an option. The only democratic options are leave with or without a deal, and I wouldn’t be so certain without a deal wouldn’t win especially if the deal
Is a bad one that leaves us locked in paralysis.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:27 pm

Right_winger wrote:Hate to break it to you sunshine but no Brexit or “remain” has already been defeated and knocked into the long grass. It is not an option. The only democratic options are leave with or without a deal, and I wouldn’t be so certain without a deal wouldn’t win especially if the deal
Is a bad one that leaves us locked in paralysis.

That's not how democracy works. You can't prove that no one who voted Leave did so instead of Remain only because of the promise, or even the probability, of a soft brexit.

I know why you're doing it, and you know why you're doing it, and it demonstrates that you're not interested in the will of the people one little bit.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:30 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's not how democracy works. You can't prove that no one who voted Leave did so instead of Remain only because of the promise, or even the probability, of a soft brexit.

I know why you're doing it, and you know why you're doing it, and it demonstrates that you're not interested in the will of the people one little bit.

Have you just stated that someone isn't interested in the will of the people after spending the last three years arguing against the will of the people?

******* pot, kettle and black springs to mind.

Paulclaret · Post by **Paulclaret** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:31 pm

dsr wrote:The problem with that deal is that everybody dislikes it.

The parties who have consistently voted against it:

Labour
Liberal Democrat
Change UK
SNP
Plaid Cymru
DUP
Green

and the party which has voted in favour was the Conservatives, but under the new leadership Conservative policy is to oppose it.

So why put a deal which nobody likes to the referendum? And where on the ballot paper did it say that we would only leave if the EU would agree the terms of leaving?

On the last vote, the deal would have passed if the DUP had been in favour. They are not voting for it on the basis of any economic reasons. They are basing their opinions on sectarian reasons in Northern Ireland. If they get their way,there will be a hard border in Ireland which would result in the rise again of terrorism.

I'm assuming you don't believe Johnson can get a better deal? Therefore, yes, it should be put to the country. Some MPs on all sides voted for it, it wasn't just the Conservatives, although, of course they were by far the biggest supporters.

Although it wasn't on the ballot paper, it was clearly stated during the referendum that the government expected a deal.

Right_winger · Post by **Right_winger** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:32 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's not how democracy works. You can't prove that no one who voted Leave did so instead of Remain only because of the promise, or even the probability, of a soft brexit.

I know why you're doing it, and you know why you're doing it, and it demonstrates that you're not interested in the will of the people one little bit.

I know what I’m doing, correct
Proving yourself to be a whinging little undemocratic hypocrite

The fact of the matter is, the question was cited as leave or remain the European Union. All of this hard Brexit, soft Brexit was quickly drummed up by the losing side as a way to thwart the incorrect result in their opinion. The people voted and leave won so we must leave or it’s going against the wishes of the majority of people. You understand that perfectly well there is no argument against it.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:36 pm

Paulclaret wrote:Although it wasn't on the ballot paper, it was clearly stated during the referendum that the government expected a deal.

And the government lost. You can't ask for a re-run on the grounds that the losing side made false promises.

All sorts of things were said, but all predictions for the future were non-guaranteed. The EU proved a lot less willing than expected to do a deal; the UK government proved more willing than expected to bend over backwards to please the EU, but but in spite of or because of that, they couldn't get the House of Commons to agree the revolting deal which remains all that the EU will offer.

Paulclaret · Post by **Paulclaret** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:43 pm

dsr wrote:And the government lost. You can't ask for a re-run on the grounds that the losing side made false promises.

All sorts of things were said, but all predictions for the future were non-guaranteed. The EU proved a lot less willing than expected to do a deal; the UK government proved more willing than expected to bend over backwards to please the EU, but but in spite of or because of that, they couldn't get the House of Commons to agree the revolting deal which remains all that the EU will offer.

So how do you propose getting a no deal Brexit through Parliament? There is no way MPs will pass it and we're back to square 1. If it's voted for in a referendum, it will happen, even ardent remainers won't have a leg to stand on. End of argument.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:43 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Have you just stated that someone isn't interested in the will of the people after spending the last three years arguing against the will of the people?

******* pot, kettle and black springs to mind.

I've been consistent in my belief since the referendum that the only way Brexit should be prevented is if a referendum is conducted that reverses the result of the first one.

Explain to me how it is democratic to have a referendum, but undemocratic to have another referendum where the result is essentially "don't enact that first referendum result".

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:48 pm

Erasmus wrote:Yes, those wanting it are not in favour for reasons of democracy but want a different outcome, and referendum democracy is by its nature dysfunctional. But these points don't make a second referendum undemocratic.

The the 2016 referendum result was the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

That result is yet to be implemented.

If there was to be a 2nd Peoples Vote it means that for me , as a Leave voter , to have my view point implemented, I will have to have won TWO referenda . It means that a remainer would only have to have won ONE referendum, to have their viewpoint implemented.

How in the name of God, is that democratic?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:49 pm

Paulclaret wrote:So how do you propose getting a no deal Brexit through Parliament? There is no way MPs will pass it and we're back to square 1. If it's voted for in a referendum, it will happen, even ardent remainers won't have a leg to stand on. End of argument.

The question needs to be asked the other way round. Parliament has already voted to leave the EU on 31st October; how are they going to stop it?

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:50 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The the 2016 referendum result was the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

That result is yet to be implemented.

If there was to be a 2nd Peoples Vote it means that for me , as a Leave voter , to have my view point implemented, I will have to have won TWO referenda . It means that a remainer would only have to have won ONE referendum, to have their viewpoint implemented.

How in the name of God, is that democratic?

If you can find anything in the definition of democracy that refers to aggregate score I’ll let you know!

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:51 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've been consistent in my belief since the referendum that the only way Brexit should be prevented is if a referendum is conducted that reverses the result of the first one.

Explain to me how it is democratic to have a referendum, but undemocratic to have another referendum where the result is essentially "don't enact that first referendum result".

Simple.

If the result of the first referendum is never actually implemented it was never a "democratic" referendum in the first place.

It was simply an exercise in paying lip service to democracy.

I can see why you voted Remain

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:54 pm

martin_p wrote:If you can find anything in the definition of democracy that refers to aggregate score I’ll let you know!

First, you show me a definition of democracy that says you don't actually have to implement the result if you disagree with it!!!

Get yourself to North Korea for research purposes!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:56 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:The the 2016 referendum result was the largest single expression of democracy this country has ever witnessed.

That result is yet to be implemented.

If there was to be a 2nd Peoples Vote it means that for me , as a Leave voter , to have my view point implemented, I will have to have won TWO referenda . It means that a remainer would only have to have won ONE referendum, to have their viewpoint implemented.

How in the name of God, is that democratic?

Tough ****. If the will of the people is that we should throw out the first referendum result then tough titties. The will of the people matters more than you.

Maybe you should have won the first referendum on a more solid result if you didn't want it to be vulnerable to a change of mind.

And by the way, IF we do have a second referendum and we do change our mind then that only proves how stupid it was to make such a big decision on the basis of such a slim margin in the first place. What's that term you like so much, "in a democracy sometimes you lose".

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:57 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:Simple.

If the result of the first referendum is never actually implemented it was never a "democratic" referendum in the first place.

It was simply an exercise in paying lip service to democracy.

I can see why you voted Remain

It doesn't matter if it's not implemented if the result of a second referendum is the "people" telling our government NOT to implement it.

If we can make a decision democratically, then it cannot be undemocratic for that exact same process to be used to change our minds. This is so ******* simple to understand that you have to be pretending to not understand it.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:58 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:First, you show me a definition of democracy that says you don't actually have to implement the result if you disagree with it!!!

Get yourself to North Korea for research purposes!

Here you go. Make sure you read it all, especially the bit that says there was no legal requirement for the U.K. government to act on the result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... m_Act_2015

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 1:59 pm

https://youtu.be/1_YUCqiBxQg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lib Dem boss Jo Swinson admitted on Tuesday that even if Britain voted for Brexit in a second referendum she would still campaign to reverse the decision!

Speaking to BBC News yesterday , newly elected Liberal Democrat leader Jo Swinson (or should that be Joanna Swanson?) revealed she would only accept the result of a second referendum if Remain won! If Leave won she would continue to work to block the result in Parliament.

“Would you vote for [the result if Leave won] in Parliament?”

“No.”

So even if the People spoke twice, and The People voted to leave the EU TWICE, you would still oppose that!!!!?"

"Yes"

The pure brazen democracy denial of this woman!

Totally takes apart the People’s Vote campaign’s pledge that a hypothetical Second Referendum would be the ‘final say’…

Lib-Dem leader Jo Swinson has accidentally blown apart the case for her second, “final say” Brexit referendum.

She wouldn’t honour that result either, if Leave won again. So it’s not a “final say”, until we vote Remain. Then it is.

And there, exposed for all to see, is the Remoaners’ warped view of democracy.

This is what former Fib antidemocrats party leader said -

On referendum night before the results had come in, Paddy Ashdown made a solemn promise to the British public:

“I will forgive no one who does not respect the sovereign voice of the British people once it has spoken, whether it is a majority of one per cent or 20 per cent.

When the British people have spoken you do what they command. Either you believe in democracy or you don’t"

This is what a bare faced denier of democracy looks and sounds like in July 2019

https://youtu.be/1_YUCqiBxQg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Falcon · Post by **Falcon** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:02 pm

Can you two go and squabble on one of the Brexit threads rather than sidetrack this promising thread on government by referendum and 'pure democracy' with the same old arguments we've seen a million times.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:02 pm

As usual, the video Ringo supplies does not show what Ringo is saying it does.

He also just copy-pasted Guido.

RingoMcCartney wrote:https://youtu.be/1_YUCqiBxQg

[lies removed]

Bertiebeehead · Post by **Bertiebeehead** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:05 pm

It’s a lovely day outside, why not open the curtains, step away from the keyboard and go out for the day.
Cranks the lot of you.

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:06 pm

martin_p wrote:Here you go. Make sure you read it all, especially the bit that says there was no legal requirement for the U.K. government to act on the result.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea ... m_Act_2015

You really are a little grumpster today are you Marty. Just like rest of the absolute democracy hating remoaners.

Point me to a UK wide referendum or general election result that has never been implemented.

Question- why does Marty despise the idea of the 2016 Peoples Vote being implemented and he's pathetically scurrying round on a football message board bleating on about stopping democracy?

Answer - because democracy didn't give him the result he likes!

DEMOCRACY - IT MEANS SOMETIMES YOU LOSE

GET OVER IT.

OR DO YOUR AND EVERYBODY ELSE A FAVOUR AND GET TO NORTH KOREA

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:09 pm

"Democracy - It means sometimes you lose."

"OK, let's have a confirmatory referendum since the first one was so close, just to make sure this is still what we want to do."

"No. Because i might lose."

RingoMcCartney · Post by **RingoMcCartney** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:11 pm

Bertiebeehead wrote:It’s a lovely day outside, why not open the curtains, step away from the keyboard and go out for the day.
Cranks the lot of you.

Too true !

Only dropped in while I'm having my dinner.

Back off out now in the current bun. I'll leave the sore losers to wallow in self pity and terminal frustration.

Get some sun , you vitamin D lacking, rickets ridden, Remoaners !

Toodle pip

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've been consistent in my belief since the referendum that the only way Brexit should be prevented is if a referendum is conducted that reverses the result of the first one.

Explain to me how it is democratic to have a referendum, but undemocratic to have another referendum where the result is essentially "don't enact that first referendum result".

You've consistently come up with reasons as to why the first result shouldn't be allowed to stand if that's what you mean, because you don't like the result.

How many referendums do we need to accept the result as final?
You can cry about that being bullshit like you always do, but that's how it looks to the rest of us.
Best of 'insert number here'

Tall Paul · Post by **Tall Paul** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:As usual, the video Ringo supplies does not show what Ringo is saying it does.

He also just copy-pasted Guido.

Give him a break, it's only about the sixth time he's posted it.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:27 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:"Democracy - It means sometimes you lose."

"OK, let's have a confirmatory referendum since the first one was so close, just to make sure this is still what we want to do."

"No. Because i might lose."

Why do we need to confirm the result?
Do you want another one straight after a GE when you end up with yet another Tory government, but don't after a labour one gets in?

rob63 · Post by **rob63** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:31 pm

It was a campaign badly run by Remain, judging from recent events all they had to do was promise pensioners a free TV licence & the Brexit vote would have evaporated

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:32 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:You've consistently come up with reasons as to why the first result shouldn't be allowed to stand if that's what you mean, because you don't like the result.

How many referendums do we need to accept the result as final?
You can cry about that being bullshit like you always do, but that's how it looks to the rest of us.
Best of 'insert number here'

I've never once provided a reason for why the first result shouldn't stand. I've argued reasons why it's unreliable, but i've never said it should be thrown out by any means other than a second referendum.

I expect your apology to be forthcoming. Ha! Only kidding. We both know won't correct your lies.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:33 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:Why do we need to confirm the result?
Do you want another one straight after a GE when you end up with yet another Tory government, but don't after a labour one gets in?

Because there is significant reason to believe that the public has changed its mind.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:35 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Because there is significant reason to believe that the public has changed its mind.

I assume you can provide a nationwide poll suggesting the public want another referendum.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:37 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've never once provided a reason for why the first result shouldn't stand. I've argued reasons why it's unreliable, but i've never said it should be thrown out by any means other than a second referendum.

I expect your apology to be forthcoming. Ha! Only kidding. We both know won't correct your lies.

You've stated the leavers are stupid, don't know what they're voting for, didn't vote for no deal or hard brexit, the leave side lied.
Stating it's an unreliable result is the same as stating it shouldn't stand, you're just shifting the goalposts again slightly.

I've nothing to apologize for, so no it won't be forthcoming unless you can prove I've lied...
Oh wait, you can't

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:42 pm

Bertiebeehead wrote:It’s a lovely day outside, why not open the curtains, step away from the keyboard and go out for the day.
Cranks the lot of you.

Make the most of it, the heavens have just opened in Blackpool. Heading across Lancashire.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:44 pm

GodIsADeeJay81 wrote:I assume you can provide a nationwide poll suggesting the public want another referendum.

No. But I can provide this compelling statistic.

Since the EU referendum, YouGov have been polling the question"

"In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?" about once every 1-2 weeks for the past couple of years.

Out of the last 61 times they polled this question, "wrong" has exceeded "right" 60 (sixty) times. The one time it didn't was a tie (44-44).

This isn't a statistic you can ignore and claim "oh, polls are wrong all the time", or "but there's a margin of error". The polling is consistently showing that we no longer think we made the right decision, therefore it should be pretty obvious to anyone with any kind of rationality that actually we should have a second referendum.

And if you still don't agree, remember that the Leavers got their referendum when the polls showed that they were losing by a lot, and they still argued that it was close enough that a referendum should be called. There's no excuse not to have one, if the "will of the people" is really what matters most.

martin_p · Post by **martin_p** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:45 pm

RingoMcCartney wrote:You really are a little grumpster today are you Marty. Just like rest of the absolute democracy hating remoaners.

Point me to a UK wide referendum or general election result that has never been implemented.

Question- why does Marty despise the idea of the 2016 Peoples Vote being implemented and he's pathetically scurrying round on a football message board bleating on about stopping democracy?

Answer - because democracy didn't give him the result he likes!

DEMOCRACY - IT MEANS SOMETIMES YOU LOSE

GET OVER IT.

OR DO YOUR AND EVERYBODY ELSE A FAVOUR AND GET TO NORTH KOREA

This is why I often don’t bother answering your questions. I give you an answer, it’s not one you like, so you go off on one. It’s a verifiable fact that the government are not legally bound to enact the results of the referendum whether you like it or not. Whether it’s happened before or not is immaterial.

GodIsADeeJay81 · Post by **GodIsADeeJay81** » Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:47 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:No. But I can provide this compelling statistic.

Since the EU referendum, YouGov have been polling the question"

"In hindsight, do you think Britain was right or wrong to vote to leave the European Union?" about once every 1-2 weeks for the past couple of years.

Out of the last 61 times they polled this question, "wrong" has exceeded "right" 60 (sixty) times. The one time it didn't was a tie (44-44).

This isn't a statistic you can ignore and claim "oh, polls are wrong all the time", or "but there's a margin of error". The polling is consistently showing that we no longer think we made the right decision, therefore it should be pretty obvious to anyone with any kind of rationality that actually we should have a second referendum.

And if you still don't agree, remember that the Leavers got their referendum when the polls showed that they were losing by a lot, and they still argued that it was close enough that a referendum should be called. There's no excuse not to have one, if the "will of the people" is really what matters most.

What were the outcomes prior to the last 61 times?

Polls are what they are, sometimes they're right, sometimes they aren't as shown by Remain arrogantly thinking the polls suggesting they'd win were accurate.
You clearly think they're accurate, I take them with the pinch of salt they should be taken with.

If there is an official poll held by the government asking if we need the confirmatory referendum then great, let's have one.