The SNP coming out strongly for a peoples vote on Brexit. Its not what I want as I dont think we need another vote to realise the whole Brexit fiasco should be scrapped but in name of democracy it looks like this so called peoples vote is the only viable option

We already had a people's vote

We have had a vote. Love it or loathe it, it’s been done. Wee krankie and the SNP can go screw themselves.

I prefer the peoples elbow

Time people put their country before their own ill informed polarised views

Damo wrote:We already had a people's vote

We did in 1975

Damo wrote:We already had a people's vote

Everybody deserves a second chance in life.

I respect the decision of the first vote, even though I voted remain, but surely anyone who voted leave can't be totally confident it's the correct way to go? Whether it's down to the incompetence of May and co to deliver or that it's just such a tough one to negotiate it does feel as though we are going to "lose" something. I hated the "get back control" and "let's be proud to be British" reasons for leaving as it just didn't mean anything to me. I just want it to be delivered in our best interests; for my kids interests and I'm not sure anyone can do it.

Damo wrote:We already had a people's vote

We did, on an ambiguous question. Now that we have more information, and the real likelihood that what we're about to get isn't what we wanted two years ago, we deserve the right to decide whether this is still a good idea or not.

If you disagree then please explain why we should be allowed to vote on a referendum with no reliable information as to what Leave actually would mean, but then we shouldn't be allowed to vote when we actually know what Leave really means.

joey13 wrote:We did in 1975

I wonder if we should respect the result of that first referendum.

I'll predict the counter argument; "but we didn't know what we were signing up for in 1975".

To which we reply, "That's the exact argument we're making about the 2016 referendum".

After all this time messing around you would have to be literally blind or stupid not to be able to see the massive opportunities we have ahead if we can just free ourselves from this dictatorship we were duped into joining ...

I think referring to the leave campaign as a dictatorship is a little extreme and unfair but I agree with you that those who cannot see the benefits of breaking away from it are stupid

Imploding Turtle wrote:We did, on an ambiguous question. Now that we have more information, and the real likelihood that what we're about to get isn't what we wanted two years ago, we deserve the right to decide whether this is still a good idea or not.

You're spot on, hence my reply to his post. We're going through with something which I'd be absolutely convinced would result in a remain, if we had it again.

And the people who voted brexit know damn well that's the case, too.

We've got to see if the latest plan can get through Parliament yet I feel.

If we can't get it through (and more and more details are coming out which suggest it might not be possible) then we need a way out of this.

I still think it can go through, but you need some realism and pragmatism from a whole bunch of people who appear to have little store of either.

joey13 wrote:We did in 1975

What we have just voted out from, isn’t what we voted into in 1975...

Imploding Turtle wrote:We did, on an ambiguous question. Now that we have more information, and the real likelihood that what we're about to get isn't what we wanted two years ago, we deserve the right to decide whether this is still a good idea or not.

If you disagree then please explain why we should be allowed to vote on a referendum with no reliable information as to what Leave actually would mean, but then we shouldn't be allowed to vote when we actually know what Leave really means.

If people didn't have enough information then they would of voted for the status quo. Like you did.

bobinho wrote:What we have just voted out from, isn’t what we voted into in 1975...

There it is.

bobinho wrote:What we have just voted out from, isn’t what we voted into in 1975...

FactualFrank wrote:Everybody deserves a second chance in life.

I agree. So once all of this is dealt with, I say we should give everyone another vote with regards to 're joining.
In another 40 years or so

A referendum can be either democratic or it can be irrevocable. It cannot be both.

I don't want a 2nd vote, but if people are going to pretend that 52% voted for economic suicide, then I'm all for it.

Cheers Damo, had a brain freeze there and missed it completely for about ten minutes.

I hate these discussions cos they get me so annoyed and I make daft mistakes!

Damo wrote:If people didn't have enough information then they would of voted for the status quo. Like you did.

Then people won't have changed their mind and Leave will win again. There's no downside to making sure the final deal is really the deal we want to leave the EU with. None.

It both amuses me and infuriates me the way people bang on about “democracy” and “respecting the will of the people” over the Brexit vote.

Is it really democracy when an ill informed electorate are asked to vote on an unrealistically vague question and then systematically lied to by a group of politicians who themselves don’t really know what they want?

I don’t think so.

Who would pay for another vote? Who paid for the last one?

bobinho wrote:What we have just voted out from, isn’t what we voted into in 1975...

Comedy gold.

Lancasterclaret wrote:A referendum can be either democratic or it can be irrevocable. It cannot be either.

That's a lovely quote you just made up, but you probably should of got someone to proof read it

Oh its not mine Damo, its one of those annoying lawyer experts on twitter.

Still, I reckon a lad from Burnley with "imaginary" grand kids can do better eh?

EDIT - cheers again for the correction. Got to ask, do you ever regret mentioning you voted for your non-existent grandkids? I certainly regret annoying you know who with "always right" comment!

1. First vote result hasn't yet been implemented.

2. It would massively damage confidence in British democracy to overturn something voted for before it's even been given a chance to happen.

3. People Vote is incredibly disingenuous. Initially they pushed it as trying to vote on the type of deal, when in reality all it is for is to have another shot at remaining.

4. What would be the point of voting again if the first vote meant absolutely nothing?

It would be a huge mistake, far bigger than they think Brexit is right now.

Imploding Turtle wrote:We did, on an ambiguous question. Now that we have more information, and the real likelihood that what we're about to get isn't what we wanted two years ago, we deserve the right to decide whether this is still a good idea or not.

If you disagree then please explain why we should be allowed to vote on a referendum with no reliable information as to what Leave actually would mean, but then we shouldn't be allowed to vote when we actually know what Leave really means.

Because we don't know what remain means either.

I'll take the second referendum in return for a guarantee that, if we stay in the EU as a result, every single treaty change since 1975 must also be subject to a referendum, line-by-line, one vote for each change and that we will roll back any that aren't voted for. Also, out of a fraternal spirit, to ensure the UK has no advantage and to evidence the popularity of the EU among its electorate, of course a similar exercise in all the 27. Finally, all future treaty changes, or any issue where any 1 of the 28's supreme courts decide the EU is extending its powers or reach, to be subject to the same. Deal?

Damo wrote:That's a lovely quote you just made up, but you probably should of got someone to proof read it

*have.

Quickenthetempo wrote:Who would pay for another vote? Who paid for the last one?

Soros is especially keen to fund the group that started this push for a people's vote....

Amazing how people have a massive issue with Russians supposedly interfering in British democracy, whilst happily pushing the Soros funded People's vote campaign.

One of the daftest arguments from Brexiteers (in a very crowded field it has to be said) is that no one knew what remain meant.

its just so sad that so many, so desperate to get some sort of mythical unicorn based panacea for all their ills now think the current mismatch of a deal (or even worse, the No Deal scenario) will somehow work to make stuff better.

But the deal on the table from Mrs May represents the only way out of this without a 2nd vote. That is the reality. We've just got to hope that there is enough common sense around to get it through.

Lancasterclaret wrote:Oh its not mine Damo, its one of those annoying lawyer experts on twitter.

Still, I reckon a lad from Burnley with "imaginary" grand kids can do better eh?

Well, if it was "lawyer experts" who drafted it, they weren't very good "lawyer experts". I imagine they meant the last word to be "both" in order to give it meaning; otherwise they've said it simultaneously both can and can't be "either".

Were these "lawyer experts" (a phrase which, I confess, is new to me) from Schrödinger & Cat LLP, by any chance?

Nice, but I've edited it.

I thought you had slightly more class than to go down the Ringo route.

my mistake.

My*

You're rather prone to them.

Lancasterclaret wrote:A referendum can be either democratic or it can be irrevocable. It cannot be either.

I don't want a 2nd vote, but if people are going to pretend that 52% voted for economic suicide, then I'm all for it.

They didn't. A YouGov poll on the eve of the referendum showed that almost half (48%) of people who intended to vote Leave thought the UK would be better off, and 38% thought it would make no difference. Only 4% of intended Leave voters thought it would leave the UK worse off economically.

So that's 76% of people who voted Leave discovering that they are wrong.

However, only 8% of leave voters cited the economy as the most important issue.

I think it's fair to assume that that entire 8% thought that leaving would either leave us better off or about the same since it makes no sense for any of the 4% who thought it would make us worse off to have the economy as their most important issue, so there's 8% of leave voters whose mind have probably changed; or 4.14% of referendum voters.

Not even half of those voters need to have changed their mind (I think more are likely to have changed their mind) then that's enough to flip the 51.8% - 48.2% result.
And if polling is showing Remain with a lead of 52-48 then i think that's what's happened.

The poll: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/c ... OFPOLL.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle wrote:We did, on an ambiguous question. Now that we have more information, and the real likelihood that what we're about to get isn't what we wanted two years ago, we deserve the right to decide whether this is still a good idea or not.

If you disagree then please explain why we should be allowed to vote on a referendum with no reliable information as to what Leave actually would mean, but then we shouldn't be allowed to vote when we actually know what Leave really means.

Hi IT, the thing is none of us know what the future holds. I believe this is true for both a "remain" and a "leave" choice. So, I dont think we are, necessarily, any better informed now than we were in 2016 (or any earlier period).

So, we either understand the question asked in a referendum in this context, or we are happy to express our opinion knowing that we don't know.

The "political scientists" among us might argue that all the "but we didn't know what the outcome would be" and "some of the politicians told lies" etc. etc. just demonstrates the gaps in understanding of the political discourse by those people making those arguments - but, there's not a lot we can do about it.

The last thing any democracy needs is a "right of appeal" when some choose to express disagreement with the outcome of a vote. Once we start down that road we are very close to ending all votes and ending democracy.

There should be no second referendum. But if there was one it should only be a vote on the proposed EU withdrawal deal or no deal. Anyhow it has all been said humpteen times by the same people so little point regurgitating their unchanged views.

If you say so

Course, i'd like to hear some sensible Brexit plans for dealing with stuff like the irish border, the economy, that kind of thing.

But I get stuff like what you come out with, all the time, so I'm a bit short with people who do that.

thatdberight wrote:Because we don't know what remain means either.

I'll take the second referendum in return for a guarantee that, if we stay in the EU as a result, every single treaty change since 1975 must also be subject to a referendum, line-by-line, one vote for each change and that we will roll back any that aren't voted for. Also, out of a fraternal spirit, to ensure the UK has no advantage and to evidence the popularity of the EU among its electorate, of course a similar exercise in all the 27. Finally, all future treaty changes, or any issue where any 1 of the 28's supreme courts decide the EU is extending its powers or reach, to be subject to the same. Deal?

That's the dumbest condition possible. By voting to remain it is implied that we're accepting every one of those treaty changes in exchange for the benefits of being an EU member.
Not only that but we've had a veto available to us on every one of those changes.

I honestly can't understand how anyone could possibly have voted for Remain and not knowing that voting Remain meant voting for the status quo. And i don't think you're stupid enough to actually believe that anyone did.

There was no soft remain or hard remain or red/white/blue remain. We know exactly what we were voting for when we cast our Remain vote. We had 40 years of history to inform us.

Ok - stick my hand up time, even if it means I appear shallow and dumb to some - I don’t care.

I voted Leave on the basis of lies by the Leave campaign. I approached my decision as scientifically as I could by weighing up the pros and cons at the time from the information provided at the time and also what I could find. To say that right up until actually being faced with the vote in the booth that I could have voted either way would be accurate - I was as near as dammit 50/50. I have since discovered that the £350M bus was a lie and control of immigration was also a massive lie based upon social media manipulation that really turned rational people into Britain First stereotypes. At the time I could see social housing issues allegedly being affected by immigration, and other social issues being whipped up into a frenzy by the Leave campaign, all very emotional and misleading.

I made a mistake, I would definitely vote remain in the next vote should it come.

Paul Waine wrote:Hi IT, the thing is none of us know what the future holds. I believe this is true for both a "remain" and a "leave" choice. So, I dont think we are, necessarily, any better informed now than we were in 2016 (or any earlier period).

So, we either understand the question asked in a referendum in this context, or we are happy to express our opinion knowing that we don't know.

The "political scientists" among us might argue that all the "but we didn't know what the outcome would be" and "some of the politicians told lies" etc. etc. just demonstrates the gaps in understanding of the political discourse by those people making those arguments - but, there's not a lot we can do about it.

The last thing any democracy needs is a "right of appeal" when some choose to express disagreement with the outcome of a vote. Once we start down that road we are very close to ending all votes and ending democracy.

This makes absolutely no sense. Why shouldn't a democracy have a "right of appeal" as you call it? What kind of a democracy exists where the public can't change its mind on something? It's why we have had more than one general election in our history.

Imploding Turtle wrote:That's the dumbest condition possible. By voting to remain it is implied that we're accepting every one of those treaty changes in exchange for the benefits of being an EU member.
Not only that but we've had a veto available to us on every one of those changes.

I honestly can't understand how anyone could possibly have voted for Remain and not knowing that voting Remain meant voting for the status quo. And i don't think you're stupid enough to actually believe that anyone did.

There was no soft remain or hard remain or red/white/blue remain. We know exactly what we were voting for when we cast our Remain vote. We had 40 years of history to inform us.

One of the things I don't get, IT, is why supporters of the UK remaining in the EU sometimes (or often, if you like) quote the right to veto any (further) developments within the EU as a positive. Yes, it may block the EU changing, but is that a good thing for the EU (or the UK)?

If we feel the right to veto is an important condition of the UK remaining in the EU, isn't it more logical for the UK to choose to "step aside" i.e "leave" and allow the EU to progress in the ways that, otherwise, the UK would block?

You don't think any other country would use its Veto to block further integration then?

Not even the former Warsaw Pact countries? The ones that were actually controlled by the USSR?

Not even Denmark? the netherlands?

There isn't going to be the integration that millions of people have convinced themselves is going to happen.

Vetoes are worthless in the EU. Cameron tried that and they simply cut us out and carried on:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -eu-treaty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EU is an uncontrollable Behemoth just ploughing on regardless.

taio wrote:There should be no second referendum. But if there was one it should only be a vote on the proposed EU withdrawal deal or no deal. Anyhow it has all been said humpteen times by the same people so little point regurgitating their unchanged views.

Why? This effectively disenfranchises the 48% who think that both scenarios are retarded.

I think any second referendum should be a 3-way, STV referendum on the three options (remains/the deal/no deal). If no single option gets 50% in the first round then the option with the least votes is eliminated and whatever their second choice was becomes their vote in the 2nd round. That way no one's view gets ignored.

This way if there really is a majority of voters who want us to leave at all costs then we'll still leave. But if there isn't then we'll either remain, or we'll choose the deal that's available.

burnleymik wrote:Vetoes are worthless in the EU. Cameron tried that and they simply cut us out and carried on:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/ ... -eu-treaty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The EU is an uncontrollable Behemoth just ploughing on regardless.

His veto worked. The EU had to do something else without imposing anything on the UK that the UK didn't want. The veto did exactly what it was supposed to do.

I've just got back from a tour of New England. I walked the "freedom trial" in Boston and visited Lexington and Concord - where the first shots were fired in the American Revolution: April 19th, 1775. "The first time Englishman had fired on Englishman" is one of the ways those events are described in the battle field tours today....

The Colonialists in New England may be compared with the UK today. Great Britain - led by George III - may be considered the equivalent of the EU.

Of course, we can "compare and contrast" these situations.

Imploding Turtle wrote:His veto worked. The EU had to do something else without imposing anything on the UK that the UK didn't want. The veto did exactly what it was supposed to do.

He didn't stop it, they just manoeuvred around him. I am sure there are scenarios where that could be very detrimental to the country/s who throw in their veto.

No offence Paul, but how do you make that comparison with a straight face?

Paul Waine wrote:I've just got back from a tour of New England. I walked the "freedom trial" in Boston and visited Lexington and Concord - where the first shots were fired in the American Revolution: April 19th, 1775. "The first time Englishman had fired on Englishman" is one of the ways those events are described in the battle field tours today....

The Colonialists in New England may be compared with the UK today. Great Britain - led by George III - may be considered the equivalent of the EU.

Of course, we can "compare and contrast" these situations.

I'm not that good on UK history but i'm pretty sure England had some civil wars before the American Revolutionary war.