Possible 2nd EU Referendum

Phathanded · Post by **Phathanded** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 8:58 am

As has been said before, a second referendum would just be another way of blocking the will of the people. This argument that we were ill informed before the first election is a load of old tripe. The simple fact remains that the vote was either leave or remain. Nobody could have informed us of the consequences of either result as there are so many factors involved it is impossible to predict.
Also if we are to have a 2nd vote because we were mid-informed shouldn’t we have a general election every time something is promised in campaigning and doesnt materialise? Eg when the Liberal Democrat’s promised to freeze/abolish uni fees, they got into coalition power and proceeded to put fees up. We would be permanently voting.
We voted to leave, now it’s up to the government to get the best deal they can. If the EU even has the slightest inclination that we might back down then they have zero incentive to give us a good deal. We play hard ball and we get something in the middle at the very least.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:05 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:You did, it was in June 2016.

No one who voted knew what "leave" meant. Just look at the shitstorm over the customs Union and you can see that.

If "leave" meant literally just leaving the EU then why are you lot flipping your **** when the rest of us try to make sure we still have all the benefits of things like single market access, customs union, free movement, same laws and regulations, etc. That just proves that even you didn't know what you were voting for. And if Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for then how the hell can you say say that I knew what I was voting against?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:13 am

And your kicking and screaming over a second referendum when we do know what we'd be voting for just shows how worried you are when the electorate is informed properly about what they're voting for.

I understood the argument against a rerun of the first referendum, and I agreed with you for the most part (though I would support a second in/out referendum if it was legally binding), but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to be opposed to a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

If you were really that concerned that the voice of the people be heard and obeyed then you would want that voice to come from people who actually know what they're talking about. No one voting last time 52% of the voice didn't have a clue. And the other 48% didn't have a clue what the other option meant. That's not democracy, that's you trying to get what you want through hoodwinking the electorate.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:21 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:You knew what remain meant when you voted against it. Why do I not deserve the right to vote for or against leave when I'll know what it means?

You have a funny definition of democracy.

Hi IT, see my post - from last night - we did know what "leave" meant because David Cameron and all the remain campaign told us. What the "remain" campaign didn't tell us is what "remain" will mean in the future.

And, for those who argue that the race should be re-run: there was only one London 2012 Olympics and there was only 1 winner of the gold medal in the 100 metres. End of. Yes, there are other 100 metres in future, but the winner of the 2012 Olympics had been decided.

JohnMcGreal · Post by **JohnMcGreal** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:22 am

Phathanded wrote:As has been said before, a second referendum would just be another way of blocking the will of the people.

How so? Surely the result of a second referendum would reflect the will of the people? How can the will of the people block the will of the people?

ClaretAndJew · Post by **ClaretAndJew** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:37 am

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE

TAKE BACK CONTROL

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT

Buzzwords that mean absolutely **** all.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 9:54 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:And your kicking and screaming over a second referendum when we do know what we'd be voting for just shows how worried you are when the electorate is informed properly about what they're voting for.

I understood the argument against a rerun of the first referendum, and I agreed with you for the most part (though I would support a second in/out referendum if it was legally binding), but it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to be opposed to a referendum on the final Brexit deal.

If you were really that concerned that the voice of the people be heard and obeyed then you would want that voice to come from people who actually know what they're talking about. No one voting last time 52% of the voice didn't have a clue. And the other 48% didn't have a clue what the other option meant. That's not democracy, that's you trying to get what you want through hoodwinking the electorate.

I'd have another vote tomorrow if it was up to me don't get me wrong.

I honestly believe that it was so close last time because the warnings of immediate economic catastrophe scared the living daylights out of some vulnerable people; I know 2 people personally who voted remain purely on the basis of Osbourne telling them they' be 4.3k a year worse off after implementing the infamous "punishment budget". 2 years on, and pretty much nobodies life has changed for the worse and a nation bearing witness to a monumental hissy fit from the media and political class will (in my opinion) only harden resolve amongst leavers and may even tick off a good number of remainers.

Phathanded · Post by **Phathanded** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:15 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:How so? Surely the result of a second referendum would reflect the will of the people? How can the will of the people block the will of the people?

Ok I understand your point, but where does it end? If we have a second referendum no matter what the result, there may be another issue that we can’t settle. Do we then have a third referendum? It’s farcical. There is only one fact that we can rely on in this debate. Leave won the initial vote, as a result its the duty of the government to make sure this happens. I voted remain, however it would undermine the whole idea of referendums if we don’t do as the majority of voters wish. Not only that but if we turn around now and change our minds, what will other countries think of us? They will have us in the palm of their hands and what sort of deals do you think we will get? Insolent Britain threw their toys out of the pram and wanted to leave the party, now they are begging to come back in. Merkel et al will be laughing all the way to the bank!!

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:23 am

BennyD wrote:Let me explain in simple terms you may, but probably won’t, understand; a 100 metre race where Usain Bolt (favourite) comes second. The ‘Intelligensia’ (and you) don’t ‘get’ the result so demand another race. If he wins the next race race, they (and you) are happy and all is well with the world. If he doesn’t, they (you) want another and another and another until he wins and satisfies their (your) sense of correctness. Imagine if he won the first race and the hoipolloi aren’t satisfied, would you want a rerun? No, obviously you wouldn’t. That, btw, isn’t democracy, it’s keep rerunning it until you are happy.

It's a bit of a weird comparison, but if we accept it then presumably Roger Bannister would still hold the world record for running the mile.

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:36 am

JohnMcGreal wrote:How so? Surely the result of a second referendum would reflect the will of the people? How can the will of the people block the will of the people?

What about a 3rd and 4th and 5th when will it stop?

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:45 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:I'd have another vote tomorrow if it was up to me don't get me wrong.

I honestly believe that it was so close last time because the warnings of immediate economic catastrophe scared the living daylights out of some vulnerable people; I know 2 people personally who voted remain purely on the basis of Osbourne telling them they' be 4.3k a year worse off after implementing the infamous "punishment budget". 2 years on, and pretty much nobodies life has changed for the worse and a nation bearing witness to a monumental hissy fit from the media and political class will (in my opinion) only harden resolve amongst leavers and may even tick off a good number of remainers.

And what about the greatest lie of them all - an extra £350 million a week to the NHS?

A lie so unfounded that no financial expert has been able to provide any proof whatsoever that the NHS will be better off if we leave.

Surely that swayed voters the other way?

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:48 am

Spijed wrote:And what about the greatest lie of them all - an extra £350 million a week to the NHS?

A lie so unfounded that no financial expert has been able to provide any proof whatsoever that the NHS will be better off if we leave.

Surely that swayed voters the other way?

Nobody voted for brexit because of a bus with a suggestion on it, no matter how many times remainers try to say it won the vote.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:51 am

Phathanded wrote:Ok I understand your point, but where does it end? If we have a second referendum no matter what the result, there may be another issue that we can’t settle.

This is exactly the point.
It's not a 2nd referendum. It's an entirely new one, with an entirely different set of questions which would hopefully be more specific.
This is exactly why historically the UK does not take decisions based on referenda. Once you have one, then there's no logical reason why you shouldn't have another, and another .....
(Italy have had 144 since the 2nd World War!)
In our history we have only ever had 12 referenda, and most of those were held by the Blair administration to advise the government about the wishes of the Scots and Welsh on the issue of devolution, which is probably reasonable.
Then Cameron decided to have 3 referenda during his short term in office. It was the wrong route to go down, but we are now where we are.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:51 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:No one who voted knew what "leave" meant. Just look at the shitstorm over the customs Union and you can see that.

If "leave" meant literally just leaving the EU then why are you lot flipping your **** when the rest of us try to make sure we still have all the benefits of things like single market access, customs union, free movement, same laws and regulations, etc. That just proves that even you didn't know what you were voting for. And if Leave voters didn't know what they were voting for then how the hell can you say say that I knew what I was voting against?

Perhaps you should of done more research
(not just buzzfeed)

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 10:56 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:Nobody voted for brexit because of a bus with a suggestion on it, no matter how many times remainers try to say it won the vote.

So at least you agree that there will be no advantages to leaving the EU with regards to the NHS.

ClaretMoffitt · Post by **ClaretMoffitt** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:08 am

Spijed wrote:So at least you agree that there will be no advantages to leaving the EU with regards to the NHS.

The biggest advantage to the NHS will come in the form of reduced immigration. Already 100,000 less people are coming into the UK a year. The biggest complaint the NHS has is long waiting times and stretched demand. A reduction in users of it's services directly combats that issue.

Also, I don't accept the view that any such benefit will be downplayed because of a reduction on EU recruitment for the NHS. That's because EU immigrants make up only 5% of NHS staff, and skills workers meeting a labour demand will always be welcomed into the UK.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:12 am

ClaretMoffitt wrote:The biggest advantage to the NHS will come in the form of reduced immigration. Already 100,000 less people are coming into the UK a year. The biggest complaint the NHS has is long waiting times and stretched demand. A reduction in users of it's services directly combats that issue.

Also, I don't accept the view that any such benefit will be downplayed because of a reduction on EU recruitment for the NHS. That's because EU immigrants make up only 5% of NHS staff, and skills workers meeting a labour demand will always be welcomed into the UK.

Overall immigration will not be reduced as a result of Brexit.

Greenmile · Post by **Greenmile** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:14 am

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, see my post - from last night - we did know what "leave" meant because David Cameron and all the remain campaign told us...

Hi Paul

How did Brexit voters work out which bits of what Cameron and the remain campaign said were “project fear” and which bits were definitely true and to be taken 100% at face value?

Quickenthetempo · Post by **Quickenthetempo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 11:28 am

Spijed wrote:And what about the greatest lie of them all - an extra £350 million a week to the NHS?

A lie so unfounded that no financial expert has been able to provide any proof whatsoever that the NHS will be better off if we leave.

Surely that swayed voters the other way?

Come on Spijed you're not that thick surely?

You did realise that any campaigner for either side could only make suggestions of what could happen unless part of the government don't you?

That's why the nonsense spouted by Osborne and Cameron was far more dangerous. They had actual influence.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:36 pm

ClaretMoffitt wrote:You did, it was in June 2016.

No he and everyone did not that’s the whole point, that’s why we need an “informed referendum” when the final deal is known.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:55 pm

JohnMcGreal wrote:It's a bit of an odd comparison to make, but I'll try and go along with it.

There isn't just 100m race, is there? There are many races. The idea being to test who is the fast sprinter at that time. If Bolt loses a race, there will be another race not too far down the line. He may lose again. He might win.

The fastest sprinter in the world is not fixed in time. The fastest sprinter in the world in 2016 might not be the fastest in 2018. Things change.

The public opinion of 2016 might be the same as it is in 2018. But it might not. The only way we can test this is by asking the people. The same way we test 100m sprinters by having frequent races. We don't say: 'Right, Bolt was fastest 2 years ago, we aren't having any more races, get over it.' do we?

By denying people the chance to express their view, you're actually withdrawing democracy from them. You're damaging the democracy of this country by holding people hostage to something they may have thought 2 years ago.

If people still think Brexit is the way to go after all they've seen in the last 2 years, and they're happy with final deal May comes back with, you've nothing to worry about. The majority of people will vote for it. If some people have changed their mind and want the country to change course, that's OK too. That's what living in a democracy means. It's means people have the right to vote and they also have the right to change their views over time.

So, when does it end? With a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th referendum? Who decides when it ends? The person with the most to gain from the result? The PEOPLE were asked whether they wanted to stay or go and they voted to leave. End of. You can bet your lily white ass that the remainers wouldn’t be asking for a second referendum if they had come out on top. I know you can’t, but just accept the result and try and go with the flow.

Tribesmen · Post by **Tribesmen** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:56 pm

As the vote was so close you will always get we should have done this or that .
Now if a 2nd vote went the same way then what a 3rd vote ?

This storm is your own making in many ways .

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:59 pm

look boys, how much work has the UK Govt put stuff in place to run things in the event of us being unable to reach a deal.

Nothing. They have done nothing.

So those of you who want "no deal, just walk away" are either completely unaware of that fact, or just don't understand what that means.

The Port of Dover has already said that it would collapse on Day One of no deal scenario. That isn't scaremongering, that is the reality (I used to work in both European road haulage and freight ferries)

You can scream to the rafters about the will of the people till the cows come home, but this country is screwed by a no deal, and those who know what they are talking about (that does not include all the leading brexiteers but does include two very prominent members of "Vote Leave") know that cannot be allowed to happen.

The problem with reality is that it is reality, its something you have to deal with. Impossible dream scenarios can be safely ignored, because they are impossible dream scenarios.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 12:59 pm

Tribesmen wrote:As the vote was so close you will always get we should have done this or that .
Now if a 2nd vote went the same way then what a 3rd vote ?

This storm is your own making in many ways .

The fundamental word is “lnformed”...and that is what we have “not” had.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 1:29 pm

So, those that voted leave weren’t informed whereas those who voted remain were? That sounds pretty condescending to me but that has been the remainers’ tone since the result was announced.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:07 pm

Weird how it always seems to be remainers that didn't know what leave entailed.
And given that they didn't vote for leave, and still wouldn't, perhaps that isn't the reason they want another vote

evensteadiereddie · Post by **evensteadiereddie** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:09 pm

You won/lost/couldn't be arsed - get over it.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 2:21 pm

South West Claret. wrote:The fundamental word is “lnformed”...and that is what we have “not” had.

As usual the above 3 just don’t want to know or except the truth.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:06 pm

BennyD wrote:So, those that voted leave weren’t informed whereas those who voted remain were? That sounds pretty condescending to me but that has been the remainers’ tone since the result was announced.

Wrong, I don't think anyone has said that.
The absence of reliable and verifiable info / evidence before the vote was the same for both sides. I guess at the end of the day it boiled down to the fact that remainers (even sceptics) needed more evidence and more convincing before they would take a leap into the dark, whereas "leavers" were more prepared to take a gamble.
What 99% of remainers have said - all along - is that insufficient information was presented by both sides of the argument in the relatively short referendum campaign.
Frankly I was staggered by how poor and lacking in substance the remain campaign was, and the fact that Cameron and Osborne chose to lead it.
e.g. How often was the Irish border issue raised - other than in Ireland?
Was there ever a serious debate about the Customs Union ?
It's fair to say that most of the British electorate are far more informed about our relationship with the EU now than they were at the time of the referendum. It would be strange if they aren't as it is covered daily in the papers and on social media.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:30 pm

The fact is that Cameron and co were totally convinced of remaining and ran a slapdash campaign. However, the quality of the campaign isn’t the issue, the issue is that the country was asked if they wanted to stay or leave the EU. There is no point now revisiting the run up to, and the referendum itself asking hypothetical questions about what was known at the time. Rightly (IMO), or wrongly, the decision was made to leave and we should all pull together to make a success of it rather than kick, scream and continue to throw Teddy’s out of the cot because leave wasn’t what you voted for.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:36 pm

BennyD wrote:The fact is that Cameron and co were totally convinced of remaining and ran a slapdash campaign. However, the quality of the campaign isn’t the issue, the issue is that the country was asked if they wanted to stay or leave the EU. There is no point now revisiting the run up to, and the referendum itself asking hypothetical questions about what was known at the time. Rightly (IMO), or wrongly, the decision was made to leave and we should all pull together to make a success of it rather than kick, scream and continue to throw Teddy’s out of the cot because leave wasn’t what you voted for.

Yet again someone who thinks it’s just another game of cricket, it is of course far far more serious then that.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:47 pm

Yet again someone who thinks a referendum result is reversible. IT ISN’T. All we can do now is work with what we’ve got.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 3:57 pm

BennyD wrote:Yet again someone who thinks a referendum result is reversible. IT ISN’T. All we can do now is work with what we’ve got.

Just to be clear it can't be reversible, nor is it enforceable.
According to our Parliamentary protocol (verifiable in Hansard) a referendum can only be advisory, so basically Parliament can choose to do whatever it likes after a result.
This is the Sovereign Parliament that many "leavers" voted for, and its the duty of MPs do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. (They are not - as some people would like to think - delegates for their constituency.)
Isn't democracy just full of ironies and contradictions?

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:03 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Just to be clear it can't be reversible, nor is it enforceable.
According to our Parliamentary protocol (verifiable in Hansard) a referendum can only be advisory, so basically Parliament can choose to do whatever it likes after a result.
This is the Sovereign Parliament that many "leavers" voted for, and its the duty of MPs do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. (They are not - as some people would like to think - delegates for their constituency.)
Isn't democracy just full of ironies and contradictions?

Well if true then it’s still back to an “informed” referendum which the Country has not had yet.

Even the current bunch must do that even if it’s only to take the responsibility off their weak shoulders.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:08 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Just to be clear it can't be reversible, nor is it enforceable.
According to our Parliamentary protocol (verifiable in Hansard) a referendum can only be advisory, so basically Parliament can choose to do whatever it likes after a result.
This is the Sovereign Parliament that many "leavers" voted for, and its the duty of MPs do what they believe is in the best interests of the country. (They are not - as some people would like to think - delegates for their constituency.)
Isn't democracy just full of ironies and contradictions?

As you say - just because the government was elected specifically on a manifesto that said we will leave the EU as per referendum, does not mean they have to do it. They can say "we changed our mind" - "the people have spoken but the people were wrong" - "we are not competent to do what we said we would" - they can put it any way they want. They can even sit in government and say "we lied through our teeth, all we are interested in is our parliamentary salaries and stuff democracy" if they so wish. Parliament is sovereign.

But is that the sort of parliament we want? The sort that says "we put it to the vote, but we had our fingers crossed so it doesn't count"?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:09 pm

South West Claret. wrote:Well if true then it’s still back to an “informed” referendum which the Country has not had yet.

Even the current bunch must do that even if it’s only to take the responsibility off their weak shoulders.

The only problem with an "informed" referendum is that we will have the same problem the other way round. We won't know what the terms and conditions are for staying in. There won't be any automatic right to pretend none of this has ever happened.

BennyD · Post by **BennyD** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:14 pm

Any government that so flouts the will of the people would have major problems in the future, especially as the main parties have said the result has to be honoured. Even taking the technicality you raised into consideration, I would much rather have a government like that than the beurocratic dogturd that currently resides in Brussels/Strasbourg.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:15 pm

It matters not how they put it to the electorate but they must after having finished their negotiations with the eu and tell us what we are “Actually” voting for.. that’s the whole point I repeat an “informed” referendum.

Spijed · Post by **Spijed** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:24 pm

BennyD wrote:Any government that so flouts the will of the people would have major problems in the future, especially as the main parties have said the result has to be honoured. Even taking the technicality you raised into consideration, I would much rather have a government like that than the beurocratic dogturd that currently resides in Brussels/Strasbourg.

And if we leave without giving any consideration to the 16 million that wanted to stay there will be major problems as well.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:42 pm

South West Claret. wrote:It matters not how they put it to the electorate but they must after having finished their negotiations with the eu and tell us what we are “Actually” voting for.. that’s the whole point I repeat an “informed” referendum.

That's the problem. We will know what the final agreement is if we let it ride. We won't know what will happen if we vote down the agreement - the EU's position could be anywhere from "tough, get out with no deal" to "welcome back with open arms, we give you everything you had before", and there won't be any guide to how or if it will work. Especially as the ECJ will be involved and those judges are allowed to make law as well as interpret it.

DCWat · Post by **DCWat** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:50 pm

An ‘informed referendum’ would only play into the hands of the European negotiators. It would be a fruitless exercise to announce that one would be held.

Any deal agreed may look bad in the cold light of day but that won’t of course mean that the future won’t be brighter.

There will be issues to fix post any deal and new deals to be made both in and outside of Europe, which will be on going for years.

Any vote about the deal on the table will only see a new round of spin and conjecture from both sides and won’t give a true picture to the voters of what the future will look like, one way or the other.

For me a new vote would be pointless.

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:54 pm

Spijed wrote:And if we leave without giving any consideration to the 16 million that wanted to stay there will be major problems as well.

I think the vast majority of those 16 million have accepted the result.
There are some extremists who can't or won't accept it and want another vote, but they are a minority

Longsidebogs · Post by **Longsidebogs** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 4:55 pm

piston broke wrote:As a remainer and a democrat I’m quite happy to accept that leave won.
What ticks me off after a 51%-49% vote is extremist leavers, who Teresa May has put in charge, telling us that the public demand a hard brexit. I would suggest that the 49% remain and more than 2% leave would rather have a soft brexit to protect jobs.

Absolute rubbish. There is no soft or hard Brexit. Only Brexit! We were given two choices, completely out or remain in. We were told that the result of the referendum would be irreversible, but that the democratic will of the people would be respected and acted upon. Democracy in the UK is dead unless the vote is carried through. That’s not extreme at all. It’s what a fair few million EXTRA people voted for!

BleedingClaret · Post by **BleedingClaret** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:07 pm

First of all it might be an idea not to have someone that believed in the EU and voted to remain in it, in charge of leaving the EU.
If Labour won the next election but Theresa May was kept as Prome Minister how determined would she be to implement Labour policies to the full.
The sly use of leave voters admitting not to being happy with the Brexit used to say they’d now vote to remain is nonsense.
Much more likely they’d say stop ******* about talking to the arrogant *******. **** em off pay em nothing and move on.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:09 pm

DCWat wrote:An ‘informed referendum’ would only play into the hands of the European negotiators. It would be a fruitless exercise to announce that one would be held.
.

I disagree entirely, and don't in all honesty understand your logic.
If the EU know that the deal has to be approved by the British electorate, then it would be in their interests to come up with something that a good majority will support. They would have to listen when our negotiators said: "There's no way the British voters will vote for that".
Let's take for example the Customs Union and Single Market. They might agree to us retaining the current arrangements (or similar) but would in return ask for "freedom of movement". Our negotiators could simply say, "We're wasting our time because it'll be rejected at the ballot box".
If we reject the deal at the end and decide to "go it alone" then we are in for a difficult time, but it won't do them much good either, so they would be under pressure to listen to the voice of the people.
They would be far more likely to take this seriously than a Tory negotiating team that is hopelessly divided, has no real strategy, and can't be relied on to say the same thing from one day to the next.

Claret-On-A-T-Rex · Post by **Claret-On-A-T-Rex** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:15 pm

BennyD wrote:Let me explain in simple terms you may, but probably won’t, understand; a 100 metre race where Usain Bolt (favourite) comes second. The ‘Intelligensia’ (and you) don’t ‘get’ the result so demand another race. If he wins the next race race, they (and you) are happy and all is well with the world. If he doesn’t, they (you) want another and another and another until he wins and satisfies their (your) sense of correctness.

Brilliant, EXACTLY!
They should keep having referendums until Remain wins.
It's hardly likely to happen the first time because of the ratio of "intelligesia" to stupid people in the general population, hence the first result.
Now many more people have seen the error of their ways.
If not, just run it again until there's a majority for Remain, it'll hardly spark a civil war.

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 5:22 pm

Longsidebogs wrote:Absolute rubbish. There is no soft or hard Brexit. Only Brexit! We were given two choices, completely out or remain in.

Ah good, so that simplifies matters. Brexit means brexit!
Most of us know what was mean't by remain, so in order that we might best understand your position, could you please define what you mean by "completely out"?
Will we - for example - cancel all 759 treaties / protocols that we have with the EU, or would you (e.g.) like us to keep the bit that allows us to fly safely in and out of the EU and the USA?
Should we still co-operate over medicines and cancer drugs?
Should we continue to co-operate over border controls and security?
Should we in fact have a hard border with the EU?
Should we retain EU standards for goods? And if not who will we sell too?
If your answer to all the above is no, then we'll be completely out.

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:06 pm

nil_desperandum wrote:Ah good, so that simplifies matters. Brexit means brexit!
Most of us know what was mean't by remain, so in order that we might best understand your position, could you please define what you mean by "completely out"?
Will we - for example - cancel all 759 treaties / protocols that we have with the EU, or would you (e.g.) like us to keep the bit that allows us to fly safely in and out of the EU and the USA?
Should we still co-operate over medicines and cancer drugs?
Should we continue to co-operate over border controls and security?
Should we in fact have a hard border with the EU?
Should we retain EU standards for goods? And if not who will we sell too?
If your answer to all the above is no, then we'll be completely out.

The USA would answer "yes" to all your questions (except for the odd one about retaining EU standards). Does that mean the the US is not completely out of the EU? I wouldn't have said the USA was in any way a member of the EU, but you're suggesting that it is?

nil_desperandum · Post by **nil_desperandum** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 6:20 pm

dsr wrote:The USA would answer "yes" to all your questions (except for the odd one about retaining EU standards). Does that mean the the US is not completely out of the EU? I wouldn't have said the USA was in any way a member of the EU, but you're suggesting that it is?

I don't follow your logic.
The USA does have a hard border, and isn't part of the EU, but it is pragmatic enough to have treaties with the EU (and that currently includes us). We would have to negotiate these separately, as the USA have done, if we were to come "completely out".
Much better to decide which ones we want to keep before we actually leave. I believe that this is the "cherry-picking approach" much advocated by many.
Why was my point about EU standards odd? In many cases our standards our higher than the EU, but if we are buying and selling goods, most potential importers will expect us to meet those standards, (not just the EU).

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Sat Jun 09, 2018 7:14 pm

Greenmile wrote:Hi Paul

How did Brexit voters work out which bits of what Cameron and the remain campaign said were “project fear” and which bits were definitely true and to be taken 100% at face value?

Hi Greenmile, I've thought about your question, maybe the only ones who could work that out are Cambridge Analytica. Actually, that is said "tongue in cheek."

Serious response: I don't think the question is phrased as it should be: "How do any of the electorate decide which parts of any campaign do the feel is true and which parts are just campaign rhetoric?" That would be the better question.

I'm sure the brexit voters made their decision to vote with exactly the same knowledge and understanding as the remain voters. I don't claim that any demographic had the better knowledge or made the better decision. It would be profoundly undemocractic to deem one person's vote was a vote from a position of ignorance and another person's vote was a considered vote with full knowledge and understanding of the information that should be known and considered before their vote was cast.

The UK determined through the Representation of the People Act 1918 that (some) women should have the vote. (It was extended in 1928 so that all men and all women were treated equally so far as matters pertaining to elegibility to vote was concerned).