Possible 2nd EU Referendum

[Damo]

Young v Old?

its not a contest, COD players v people who think about a war they all missed by at least twenty years.

Aye, a group of people spoiling for a fight v a generation of people who only exercise their eyeballs and thumbs 24/7

[nil_desperandum]

What about the tourism trade if as some make out we couldn't fly to Europe.
Spain wouldn't cope without British holiday makers.

In a no deal scenario the UK would have to seek an immediate "open skies" treaty with the 27 EU states and other countries who have arrangements with the EU. One of the problems with this is that all the safety regulations come under the auspices of the ECJ.
It is true that long term the Spanish economy would be hit if Brits didn't holiday there, but I doubt that the UK could survive for even one week with no flights, so we would have to hope that deals could be concluded quickly with each of those countries. Of course if we were to renege on some of our obligations then it's possible that some of them might play "hardball".
Whilst on the topic of Spain. How would we cope if we lost a million EU workers from the UK, and a million retired and elderly people had to return to the UK to take their place? Boris's pledge of £350 million / week for the NHS wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient to cover this.
Neither of the above scenarios will happen by the way since even our inept government isn't stupid enough to allow it.

[Imploding Turtle]

There would have to be more options than that if there were to be any chance of some form of consensus and bringing the country together.
IMO there would need to be at least 3 options and preferably up to about 5 so that the various middle ground options could be included. It's not impossible to devise a method by which people could express 1st, 2nd and 3rd options, or have a single transferable vote; or to be really open, fair and democratic you could have more than one round of voting as in the French Presidential elections. It wouldn't matter if the process took a few months, since we are already signed up to a lengthy transitional phase, and it would actually provide the opportunity for the open and honest debates that we never had prior to the 2016 sprint to the ballot box.
FWIW - however, I think the chances of there being a referendum on the final deal are very slim indeed.
Most likely there will be a "May inspired" fudged deal that ultimately satisfies no one and the issue will just continue to rumble on and hold the country back for another decade.

The Conservative party will never agree to anything more democratic than FPTP for any second referendum. No way could they afford to let the public see how easy it is to run an STV election.

[Imploding Turtle]

Remainers still literally have no understanding of how negotiations work

And you have no understanding of how democracy works.

[newminted]

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.

'Fine margins' but if you are going to round the numbers then its 52%-48% (51.89 - 48.11). Just to be pedantic!

[Imploding Turtle]

If the vote had of been 51% to stay in would our terms of membership have been renegotiated to appease the 49% who wanted out ? Would it F ! They want it all there own way. Clean break was voted for clean break it should be. We buy so much more than we sell to them. We contribute more than we take out. The EU budget has never been passed by auditors. It a beurocratic dinosaur that's had its day.

Lol. Of course not. We already knew the terms of voting Remain.

Perhaps if you wanted to know the terms of voting leave then you should have demanded a more sensible choices at the last referendum.

No one voting to leave knew what the terms would be. Why shouldn't those voters be allowed to cast a vote knowing exactly what they'd be voting for? Why are you demanding that people only be allowed to vote for leaving if they don't know what leaving would mean?

[Damo]

And you have no understanding of how democracy works.

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not sure where I mentioned the situation you asked me to give examples of.
If we are going down that route though, please provide examples of situations where the net 2nd contributer to the EU leaving would be beneficial to the union

There are many on here and in the wider country who are shouting out for a "just walk away" / "no deal" cliff-edge scenario. (Maybe you aren't one of them - to be fair)
You didn't however answer my previous question when I asked if you had any idea how many international treaties we would need to renegotiate if we walk away with no deal.
The answer is 759, but we would have to strike new deals with all 27 countries individually if we don't conclude a deal with the EU as a bloc, (so that's a hell of a lot of work for our civil servants! at massive cost), and then there are the many treaties / protocols that the EU has with the wider world. We would no longer be part of these, so would have to strike deals with the USA etc. on a a wide range of issues. ("Open skies" being but one obvious example).
With regards to the point about being the 2nd net contributor, the EU would just have to absorb this, but as is frequently ignored the cost will be shared by the 27, so no country is likely to suffer the financial fall-out of brexit to the extent that we will.

[Damo]

Lol. Of course not. We already knew the terms of voting remain

Hence why we voted leave.
That's despite the remain camp pretending a remain vote was for the status quo

[Damo]

There are many on here and in the wider country who are shouting out for a "just walk away" / "no deal" cliff-edge scenario. (Maybe you aren't one of them - to be fair)
You didn't however answer my previous question when I asked if you had any idea how many international treaties we would need to renegotiate if we walk away with no deal.
The answer is 759, but we would have to strike new deals with all 27 countries individually if we don't conclude a deal with the EU as a bloc, (so that's a hell of a lot of work for our civil servants! at massive cost), and then there are the many treaties / protocols that the EU has with the wider world. We would no longer be part of these, so would have to strike deals with the USA etc. on a a wide range of issues. ("Open skies" being but one obvious example).
With regards to the point about being the 2nd net contributor, the EU would just have to absorb this, but as is frequently ignored the cost will be shared by the 27, so no country is likely to suffer the financial fall-out of brexit to the extent that we will.

I'm not sure you know how the EU works.
We can't strike individual deals with any of those 27 countries.
We can however strike a deal with all 27 of them at once depending on if the deal suits germany and france

[Claret-On-A-T-Rex]

People grow and change and politics should reflect that.
For example, Ringo McCartney now pays much more attention to his spelling and grammar than he did just after the first referendum.
Although he just repeats the same tired old arguments at least he does so now with improved punctuation and paragraph use.
I firmly believe a second referendum and his increased, indignant activity on this message board will help him pass (or at least do much better in) a basic English exam.

[mdd2]

You don't think that the "competence" of the Prime Minister is a relevant factor?

She didn't want it either

[nil_desperandum]

I'm not sure you know how the EU works.
We can't strike individual deals with any of those 27 countries.
We can however strike a deal with all 27 of them at once depending on if the deal suits germany and france

I think I'm pretty clear on how it works. If we leave the EU with no deal, then we have to get the agreement of all 27 countries in order to secure any new deals. (Maybe I phrased my previous post badly).

[Damo]

I think I'm pretty clear on how it works. If we leave the EU with no deal, then we have to get the agreement of all 27 countries in order to secure any new deals. (Maybe I phrased my previous post badly).

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cartel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Lancasterclaret]

Aye, a group of people spoiling for a fight v a generation of people who only exercise their eyeballs and thumbs 24/7

Yeah, I forgot that David Davis used to be in the SAS

[BennyD]

If this sorry mess goes to a second referendum, the idea of democracy is finally, and totally, f*cked. Cue the remainers saying ‘I told you so’. W4nkers.

[Imploding Turtle]

Hence why we voted leave.
That's despite the remain camp pretending a remain vote was for the status quo

Erm... what else was a remain vote for?

You imply that we knew what Remain mean and that's why we voted Leave, while also suggesting that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo (which was to remain).

Those two don't go together.

[Lancasterclaret]

I'm astonished at so many bright, successful people who clearly haven't a scooby about what democracy is. Its genuinely frightening just how easy you lot seem to be willing to cast it away.

[nil_desperandum]

If this sorry mess goes to a second referendum, the idea of democracy is finally, and totally, f*cked. Cue the remainers saying ‘I told you so’. W4nkers.

In a democracy it's perfectly possible to construct a reasonable and logical argument that says the exact opposite.

[Imploding Turtle]

If this sorry mess goes to a second referendum, the idea of democracy is finally, and totally, f*cked. Cue the remainers saying ‘I told you so’. W4nkers.

If we deserve a vote on leaving the EU without knowing what leaving the EU actually means, why don't we deserve a vote on leaving the EU when we do know what leaving the EU actually means?

Your argument, and "logic", makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

[Damo]

Yeah, I forgot that David Davis used to be in the SAS

And that Owen Jones was Spetsnaz?
It's easily done i know

[Lancasterclaret]

Actually I'll go further

You've all had it too good, you've forgotten what a struggle it is to achieve what we have achieved as a nation over the past 100-125 years. Think how far we've come, be it the wars, democracy, human rights, economy, whatever.

To think that a country that did all that is now full of people who go "Well, democracy is ****** if we get another vote"

Says it all really

[dsr]

Whilst on the topic of Spain. How would we cope if we lost a million EU workers from the UK, and a million retired and elderly people had to return to the UK to take their place? Boris's pledge of £350 million / week for the NHS wouldn't be anywhere near sufficient to cover this.

I know I have a pretty low opinion of the EU, but not as low as all that. Are you suggesting that (like the Soviet Union used to do) they will ban their citizens from leaving the EU? Or else tell them that they are not allowed to visit the UK and if they do they won't be allowed back? How, realistically, do you think the EU will ban its citizens from working in the UK?

As for the pensioners, Spain likes pensioners. Why? They bring in funds from overseas and spend them in Spain. However much the EU orders them to, they aren't in practice going to impoverish themselves just because it will help to impoverish the UK even more.

This is actually one thing that Remainers and Brexiters are pretty much agreed on - that the EU is going to be as greedy as it can be to get as much as it can from the UK, regardless of what is fair and reasonable; and worse than that, the EU is going to be deliberately nasty even to the extent of disadvantaging itself if it can disadvantage the UK more. And what's the conclusion that we are supposed to come to, from this attitude? That the EU is a good club to be in? Or that it's a good club to be out?

One thing about Brexiters - a lot of us are pretty bloody-minded. We don't do as politicians tell us to, because if we did we'd have voted Remain. So when politicians tell us to rejoin the EU because they're nasty nasty people who will do nasty nasty things, we aren't going to do it - at least, a lot of us aren't. And, I don't doubt, there will be Remainers who look at the EU and its negotiating stance and think that it's not a good club to be in, as well. Remember the Scottish referendum was won by Remain not because the UK promised to be nasty to the Scots, but because it promised to be nice.

The point being, a second referendum would be no gimme for the Remain camp and might very well swing further to Brexit.

[Damo]

Erm... what else was a remain vote for?

You imply that we knew what Remain mean and that's why we voted Leave, while also suggesting that Remain wasn't a vote for the status quo (which was to remain).

Those two don't go together.

There wouldn't of been a referendum if remain was status quo.
You literally have no idea beyond what you can currently research on your chosen thought sites do You?

[Damo]

Actually I'll go further

You've all had it too good, you've forgotten what a struggle it is to achieve what we have achieved as a nation over the past 100-125 years. Think how far we've come, be it the wars, democracy, human rights, economy, whatever.

To think that a country that did all that is now full of people who go "Well, democracy is ****** if we get another vote"

Says it all really

"Brexiteers live in the past"

[jurek]

The one solution I can think of is that the current trading arrangements between
Ireland and Northern Ireland remain as they are at present and all other matters
fall within the UK parliament.

Sounds very simplistic I know and no doubt there are many reasons
and arguments against this.

It could eventually in time lead to a United Ireland.
The very though of which would, no doubt, horrify the Unionists and get then
to withdraw their support from the Tories and potentially force another General Election.
If not that, then major changes in the Tory Party in the first instance but then another General Election soon afterwards.
And then more than likely an extension of the 'backdrop' for another period or year or two.
Dependent on the result of the Election that is.

Whatever it is difficult not to see a continuing mess.
Someone, somewhere if not all interested parties are likely to have to compromise.

If not then it could easily be an even bigger mess.

[BennyD]

In a democracy it's perfectly possible to construct a reasonable and logical argument that says the exact opposite.

No it isn’t; the ‘logical and reasonable’ argument only applies to those who don’t agree with the original democratic vote and want to overturn it.

[Lancasterclaret]

Only if people still believe what they were told two years ago.

You are never going to change, but UKIP never had more than 10% of the nations vote.

There is a reason Brexiteers are terrified of another vote, and that is because in two years all their arguments and plans have proved to be about as successful as Venkys have been with our neighbours down the road.

You know you'll lose, but I know it won't solve the issue.

The issue will only be solved (and I've been consistent about this from Day One) if the solution is found that suits the majority of leavers and remainers. That is minimal disruption, with us moving closer or further away over time to give the economy time to adjust.

Until people like Johnson get that, this shitstorm will go on and on and on.

[Imploding Turtle]

There wouldn't of been a referendum if remain was status quo.
You literally have no idea beyond what you can currently research on your chosen thought sites do You?

You're literally criticising me for doing research?

[Imploding Turtle]

No it isn’t; the ‘logical and reasonable’ argument only applies to those who don’t agree with the original democratic vote and want to overturn it.

Hypothetical question:

If the first referendum didn't happen and the UK government invoked article 50 without one, would you then support a referendum on a choice between the final Brexit deal vrs. remaining in the EU?

[JohnMcGreal]

If this sorry mess goes to a second referendum, the idea of democracy is finally, and totally, f*cked. Cue the remainers saying ‘I told you so’. W4nkers.

So...democracy gets f*cked when the people are given more democracy?

You've lost me there.

[Paul Waine]

Hypothetical question:

If the first referendum didn't happen and the UK government invoked article 50 without one, would you then support a referendum on a choice between the final Brexit deal vrs. remaining in the EU?

Great question, IT, and, very thought provoking.

I wonder if David Cameron wishes he'd thought of that?

Logic suggests that UK gov't wouldn't have invoked Art 50 - and then put the outcome of negotiations to a referendum. If there was sufficient support for Art 50 in Parliament then there would be no need for a referendum to confirm leaving EU - or ask for the decision to be reversed.

I'd expect Art 50 negotiations to have run much more smoothly than they have - because there would have been a majority in Parliament (both Commons and Lords) that supported Art 50. The tensions arise because the referendum result went against the majority of our politicians - and, it should be said, the views of the "establishment."

Of course, if the UK gov't did call a referendum to endorse their decision to leave the EU, then, yes, I'd support a referendum. The precedent exists in the 1975 (or was it 76) referendum to endorse joining the EEC in 1973 - the UK's first referendum. And, that "resounding" affirmation of support for joining the EEC meant that the UK gov't didn't test the electorates support for the evolution of the EEC through to where we were in 2016 - and where we find ourselves now.

I'd suggest that the logic of a referendum to confirm the "new relationship" with the EU (whatever the terms) post Art 50 would be resounding support for leaving - and the UK electorate would have been very pleased to have been invited to express their opinion directly on this one issue.

However, to be asked in 2016 to express an opinion and then to be asked to "have another go...." most likely would not be viewed favourably - because we all understand "democracy" - it's the right of the electorate to be asked their opinion and the decision to be implemented accordingly.

[Imploding Turtle]

Great question, IT, and, very thought provoking.

I wonder if David Cameron wishes he'd thought of that?

Logic suggests that UK gov't wouldn't have invoked Art 50 - and then put the outcome of negotiations to a referendum. If there was sufficient support for Art 50 in Parliament then there would be no need for a referendum to confirm leaving EU - or ask for the decision to be reversed.

I'd expect Art 50 negotiations to have run much more smoothly than they have - because there would have been a majority in Parliament (both Commons and Lords) that supported Art 50. The tensions arise because the referendum result went against the majority of our politicians - and, it should be said, the views of the "establishment."

Of course, if the UK gov't did call a referendum to endorse their decision to leave the EU, then, yes, I'd support a referendum. The precedent exists in the 1975 (or was it 76) referendum to endorse joining the EEC in 1973 - the UK's first referendum. And, that "resounding" affirmation of support for joining the EEC meant that the UK gov't didn't test the electorates support for the evolution of the EEC through to where we were in 2016 - and where we find ourselves now.

I'd suggest that the logic of a referendum to confirm the "new relationship" with the EU (whatever the terms) post Art 50 would be resounding support for leaving - and the UK electorate would have been very pleased to have been invited to express their opinion directly on this one issue.

However, to be asked in 2016 to express an opinion and then to be asked to "have another go...." most likely would not be viewed favourably - because we all understand "democracy" - it's the right of the electorate to be asked their opinion and the decision to be implemented accordingly.

The EU would never negotiate our exit without an invokation of Article 50. They simply wouldn't need to negotiate in that was and deny themselves a massive bargaining advantage. It'd be like Scotland demanding that the UK negotiate Scotland's possible exit from the UK. There'd simply be no need to , and if Scotland want to negotiate then they would have to commit to leaving thus giving England, Wales and NI the high ground in negotiations.

[1Simpleton]

Hypothetical question:

If the first referendum didn't happen and the UK government invoked article 50 without one, would you then support a referendum on a choice between the final Brexit deal vrs. remaining in the EU?

Here is to your hypothesis:
A) the first referendum did happen
B) why would article 50 be involved if there was no vote?
C) people voted to leave the EU
Get over it.

[Paul Waine]

The EU would never negotiate our exit without an invokation of Article 50. They simply wouldn't need to negotiate in that was and deny themselves a massive bargaining advantage. It'd be like Scotland demanding that the UK negotiate Scotland's possible exit from the UK. There'd simply be no need to , and if Scotland want to negotiate then they would have to commit to leaving thus giving England, Wales and NI the high ground in negotiations.

Hi IT, I'm confused/you are confusing me. I was responding to your hypothetical: "UK Gov't invokes Art 50...." I'm not sure what you are now saying.

What is the EU's "massive bargaining advantage?" How does the EU's position/advantage vary in alterntative scenarios?

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi IT, I'm confused/you are confusing me. I was responding to your hypothetical: "UK Gov't invokes Art 50...." I'm not sure what you are now saying.

What is the EU's "massive bargaining advantage?" How does the EU's position/advantage vary in alterntative scenarios?

You said that logic states the UK wouldn't have invoked Article 50 and negotiated an exit without actually committing to exiting. I can't see how the EU would logically negotiate without a commitment from the UK to leave. It wouldn't make sense for the EU to allow the UK to avoid negotiating from a weak position when they don't have to allow it.

[Imploding Turtle]

Here is to your hypothesis:
A) the first referendum did happen
B) why would article 50 be involved if there was no vote?
C) people voted to leave the EU
Get over it.

You aren't leaving yourselves much room to talk if after a 2nd referendum the voters choose to remain in the UK when faced with a choice of remaining or leaving under a really shitty deal.

I bet you won't be shutting up, will you?

[Paul Waine]

You said that logic states the UK wouldn't have invoked Article 50 and negotiated an exit without actually committing to exiting. I can't see how the EU would logically negotiate without a commitment from the UK to leave. It wouldn't make sense for the EU to allow the UK to avoid negotiating from a weak position when they don't have to allow it.

Sorry, no. I said "Logic suggests that UK gov't wouldn't have invoked Art 50 - and then put the outcome of negotiations to a referendum."

[BennyD]

So...democracy gets f*cked when the people are given more democracy?

You've lost me there.

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.

[Damo]

You're literally criticising me for doing research?

Read my comment again Charlie.
Reading views of like minded people doesn't really count as research

[Imploding Turtle]

Read my comment again Charlie.
Reading views of like minded people doesn't really count as research

Then it's a good job that's not all i do, isn't it?

[Imploding Turtle]

Sorry, no. I said "Logic suggests that UK gov't wouldn't have invoked Art 50 - and then put the outcome of negotiations to a referendum."

Ah, so that's one big statement, not two seperate statements? I was genuinely **** at English in school.

[Lisbonclaret]

I'm a patriot and Brexit means Brexit.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhahahahahahahahahah.

Moron

[Bordeauxclaret]

A red, white and blue brexit?

[JohnMcGreal]

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 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.

[ClaretMoffitt]

In the interest of democracy, we must ignore all the poor people that voted (many for the first time in decades) that voted for Brexit and rerun another vote in the hope that many of the old voters have died and the younger fools have changed their minds. It is imperative that the media and political class get their way amongst the working class gammons that voted for the thing they didn't like.

GOD, SO MANY OF YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY

[Imploding Turtle]

In the interest of democracy, we must ignore all the poor people that voted (many for the first time in decades) that voted for Brexit and rerun another vote in the hope that many of the old voters have died and the younger fools have changed their minds. It is imperative that the media and political class get their way amongst the working class gammons that voted for the thing they didn't like.

GOD, SO MANY OF YOU JUST DONT UNDERSTAND DEMOCRACY

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.

[Lancasterclaret]

Some really funny definitions of democracy continuing to rear their heads this morning.

[Lancasterclaret]

Damo

This is absolute gold from a senior Brexiteer who still thinks the war is on (He's actually an MP as well)

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1005083610095996929" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ClaretMoffitt]

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.

You did, it was in June 2016.