Peoples Vote

[Quickenthetempo]

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.

The £350m wasn't a lie though was it? It was suggested by people running the leave campaign that it could happen if we leave. But just like the crap the remain campaign come out with, those not in government can't change anything.

They could only suggest what could happen or what they would do if they got in a high profile enough position to do so.

Please take this into account before you vote in anything again.

[Damo]

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!

Not at all.
I can't even remember what my point was, but the imaginary grand kid thing was just a weird deflection from the point I was making.
A bit like your comment here

[Imploding Turtle]

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.

We vetoed it because we didn't want to be a part of it. So it worked. We're not apart of that treaty. We're not held to it. Are you saying that we should also have a veto on other EU countries doing deals between each other that doesn't affect us?

[Imploding Turtle]

The £350m wasn't a lie though was it?...

How is this still unclear to people? Jesus ******* Christ.

[Paul Waine]

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.

I've argued before that if there was a vote with 3 options then everyone should be required to place two votes for 2 of the options - and the option receiving the most votes is the "winner." Much better and fairer than a STV decision.

Of course, logical there should be at least two "remain" options, let's call one "remain, as we were" and the second "remain and progress."

Again, if there are 4 options on the ballot all voters should cast 3 votes.

[Northerner]

Scotland voted to remain, how is that democratically fair?

[taio]

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.

Why? Because I feel the decision to leave has been made. A two-way referendum as suggested would enable people to make a more informed decision on the terms of Brexit. How the **** would 48% of people be disenfranchised? I'm included in that group and I'd vote and wouldn't be prevented from doing so.

Anyhow I'll leave others to the debate because I know the pattern.

[FactualFrank]

The £350m wasn't a lie though was it? It was suggested by people running the leave campaign that it could happen if we leave.

[Quickenthetempo]

How is this still unclear to people? Jesus ******* Christ.

So you two really believed the people responsible for that bus slogan who weren't in government could decide where the money would be re-directed?

[Jakubclaret]

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.

Perhaps, then a year on or so people might regret voting remain & wished they would have opted to leave & stuck with they original vote, it was meant to be a simple in or out vote on a 1 off basis well at least until the process had been fully completed.

[burnleymik]

We vetoed it because we didn't want to be a part of it. So it worked. We're not apart of that treaty. We're not held to it. Are you saying that we should also have a veto on other EU countries doing deals between each other that doesn't affect us?

Not at all. Let's take the EU army. We veto it, they just circumnavigate us and create one anyway. That veto isn't worth much and causes a lot of hostility towards the country using it, see how they reacted to Cameron.

[Paul Waine]

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.

Hi IT, can we agree that referenda and general elections are two different things? I think they are.

In a GE we are electing MPs to serve for a Parliament (whether this is fixed term or maximum 5 years is immaterial). There are then traditions where a group of these MPs form a government, usually the majority party, but provisions also exist to form a government when no party has a majority. If the government is defeated in a vote of "no confidence" a further election may be called. The government can also choose to appoint a new leader who will become the PM during the term of office.

Referenda refer a specific issue to the electorate. I'd argue that if parliament has decide to refer an issue to the electorate then parliament should deliver on the outcome of the referendum.

Of course, no parliament can bind a successor parliament. So, if in 2017 the GE had been fought on the basis of reversing the brexit vote, and the MPs who put forward that argument had won then it would be democratic to follow that new policy.

But, it would be a pretty poor reflection of the quality of our MPs if they firstly instigated a referendum and then after they had the result they said "we've changed our minds, can you all vote a second time....."

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

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.

I wonder how many people who voted remain now claim that they voted leave and have now changed their minds in an attempt to further their cause?

[Rick_Muller]

I wonder how many people who voted remain now claim that they voted leave and have now changed their minds in an attempt to further their cause?

Hold on a minute - are you trying to say I actually voted remain, but made all that previous post up to further my cause...? You really think that...?

[Jakubclaret]

I wonder how many people who voted remain now claim that they voted leave and have now changed their minds in an attempt to further their cause?

It's a plausible theory some people are that desperate to overturn democracy because they obstinately refuse to accept a majority result.

[South West Claret.]

We already had a people's vote

We certainly did not what we actually had was an ill conceived attempt by Cameron to try to dispel the historical opposition in the Conservative Party to the membership of Europe for good.

He wrongly thought that having am “uninformed” referendum would finally put the matter to bed, unfortunately for him and us it seriously back fired which has resulted in this drawn affair that means uncertainty... which no one wants.

Over two years later and we are still no nearer to a conclusion.

[PaintYorkClaretnBlue]

Hold on a minute - are you trying to say I actually voted remain, but made all that previous post up to further my cause...? You really think that...?

I’m not saying that you did, it was a question.

[burnleymik]

We certainly did not what we actually had was an ill conceived attempt by Cameron to try to dispel the historical opposition in the Conservative Party to the membership of Europe for good.

He wrongly thought that having am “uninformed” referendum would finally put the matter to bed, unfortunately for him and us it seriously back fired which has resulted in this drawn affair that means uncertainty... which no one wants.

Over two years later and we are still no nearer to a conclusion.

"uninformed" - There was enough time for both sides to make their arguments. The only true way to be "informed" is to allow Brexit to happen, give it a chance and then we can have an informed decision of life both inside and outside the EU.

[Rick_Muller]

I’m not saying that you did, it was a question.

Well, I’ll apologise for taking it as an inference that you did

[Caballo]

Scotland voted to remain, how is that democratically fair?

Mostly because Scotland isn't a member.

[Paul Waine]

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

No offense taken, Lancs. (Note, I'm using the American English spelling of "offence/offense" for context).

I'm thinking of people who essentially shared the same history and were often from the same families. I'm thinking of the Brits (the US today often think of all Brits as "English") who moved to "New England" but their family roots were in Britain. I'm thinking of those that maintained loyalty to Britain and fought against the American "patriots" and those that sided with the "revolutionaries" and eventually won and formed the United States of America. I'm thinking about what made some choose one side and what made others choose the other side. And, I'm thinking about the "ordinary man" (and ordinary woman) - rather than the "political leaders" and the "establishment" who often have different reasons for their choices.

If you ever get the chance I recommend a visit to the American Museum in Bath, George Washington had family and friends in the UK - as, I imagine, did most of the signatories to the American Constitution.

I can imagine most of us, if we take a democratic view, would have been on the side of the patriots - after we've walked the Freedom Trail in Boston.

[South West Claret.]

"uninformed" - There was enough time for both sides to make their arguments. The only true way to be "informed" is to allow Brexit to happen, give it a chance and then we can have an informed decision of life both inside and outside the EU.

Not a feasible option, we need an “informed” referendum this time, one that we were denied in 2016.

Thankfully more and more people are coming around to that view.

[burnleymik]

Not a feasible option, we need an “informed” referendum this time, one that we were denied in 2016.

Thankfully more and more people are coming around to that view.

Not feasible in your opinion. We had time to be informed, instead remain spent all their time trying to scare people into voting the way they wanted.


As for people are changing their mind, I wouldn't be so sure. I believe there are quite a few remainers who also believe there should not be another vote, also no account for the silent majority, they were the ones who surprised everyone last time.

[Paul Waine]

Not a feasible option, we need an “informed” referendum this time, one that we were denied in 2016.

Thankfully more and more people are coming around to that view.

Hi South West, what information will we have to inform us this time and how will that differ from the information we had in 2016?

And, how will we deal with new information only that becomes available after the next "peoples vote?"

If it's true that "more and more people are coming around to that view" should we be asking questions if that is an "informed view?"

[burnleymik]

Scotland voted to remain, how is that democratically fair?

Out of interest... Let's say Scotland had another referendum and voted for independence and then joined the EU (assuming they could meet all the requirements). Would Scotland then have to build a "hard Border" between England and Scotland?

[Imploding Turtle]

Why? Because I feel the decision to leave has been made. A two-way referendum as suggested would enable people to make a more informed decision on the terms of Brexit. How the **** would 48% of people be disenfranchised? I'm included in that group and I'd vote and wouldn't be prevented from doing so.

Anyhow I'll leave others to the debate because I know the pattern.

Because for all we know of the 52% who voted leave, half voted to leave with no deal and half voted to leave with a deal. If the only available Brexit was no deal then how do we know that those who voted to leave expecting there to be a deal wouldn't rather we Remain than Leave with no deal?
We can't know that without asking.

That was one of the flaws of the original referendum. It didn't account for different Leave voters having different preferences on what to do if the Brexit deal available isn't what they wanted.

[AndrewJB]

Support for this vote grows as people discover it isn’t nearly as simple or straightforward as they had been led to believe. Some are probably like an ardent leaver friend who told me yesterday he wished it had never happened, due to how complex it all is and what a mess is being made. Others perhaps didn’t vote at all, and now wish they did. I’m sure there are also many remain voters who now see the chance to - as they see it ‘end the madness’

[Jakubclaret]

Out of interest... Let's say Scotland had another referendum and voted for independence and then joined the EU (assuming they could meet all the requirements). Would Scotland then have to build a "hard Border" between England and Scotland?

Yes at Carlisle to stop the hoards of tartan army invading, it mean fortifying hadrians wall, on a serious note we can't let Scotland or Wales or any part of the UK dictate Brexit solely based on a area majority.

[thatdberight]

Because for all we know of the 52% who voted leave, half voted to leave with no deal and half voted to leave with a deal. If the only available Brexit was no deal then how do we know that those who voted to leave expecting there to be a deal wouldn't rather we Remain than Leave with no deal?
We can't know that without asking.

That was one of the flaws of the original referendum. It didn't account for different Leave voters having different preferences on what to do if the Brexit deal available isn't what they wanted.

Nor did it account for any Remain voters who had any possible future developments at which they'd consider leaving a better option. Or is the blatant attempt to divide and rule only on one side?

[South West Claret.]

“We had time to be informed”, time was irelevant as negotiations hadn’t even started let alone concluded.

On the contary If anyone was trying to scare people it was the Kippers with their bear faced innuendos and lies.

We can’t just afford to “believe” as the Country needs near certainty on this very very important subject.

Even the silent majority must now realise that immigration will not end if we were to come out as we would simply import people from non European countries.

Result the same as still being in Europe i.e wages and conditions kept low so large employers can still make outrageous and unfair profits.

[Jakubclaret]

Support for this vote grows as people discover it isn’t nearly as simple or straightforward as they had been led to believe. Some are probably like an ardent leaver friend who told me yesterday he wished it had never happened, due to how complex it all is and what a mess is being made. Others perhaps didn’t vote at all, and now wish they did. I’m sure there are also many remain voters who now see the chance to - as they see it ‘end the madness’

We can all claim to have friends who have changed their minds I should imagine there’s distribution towards that from both sides. It’s been dragging on upto now with little movement although promising signs are developing.

[Imploding Turtle]

Nor did it account for any Remain voters who had any possible future developments at which they'd consider leaving a better option. Or is the blatant attempt to divide and rule only on one side?

And if there were significant changes to our EU membership there would be a referendum. Even Farage agreed that there's be more debate over EU membership if Remain had won by the same margin.

The attempt at divide and rule is coming from the Leave side that wants to have two horses in the race.

[Wokingclaret]

God, I hope its not all we hear about this week "Jimmy kranke"

[South West Claret.]

Hi South West, what information will we have to inform us this time and how will that differ from the information we had in 2016?

Hello Paul Waine, No one can possibly know as negotiations have not been concluded yet.

And, how will we deal with new information only that becomes available after the next "peoples vote?"

Like what?


If it's true that "more and more people are coming around to that view" should we be asking questions if that is an "informed view?"

Don’t be silly.

[AndrewJB]

We can all claim to have friends who have changed their minds I should imagine there’s distribution towards that from both sides. It’s been dragging on upto now with little movement although promising signs are developing.

I wasn’t suggesting my friend represents the mainstream of leavers, but that I doubt he’s alone in becoming disenchanted with the whole thing. When the referendum was on he was quite strident in terms of backing leave, but having watched events since then he told me he’d happily turn the clock back.

I can remember a year ago a lot of people saying they’d voted remain, and now just want the government to get on with it; but I don’t hear that as much now. What is there to look forward to? That we’ll be “free”? If people’s lives are disrupted as seems likely, I can’t see many dancing in the streets over this, as I don’t think anyone really felt oppressed anyway.

There is also a limit to which people can ignore the gloomy predictions. They’re relentless, and I’m not seeing many positive fact based ones from leave.

So whereas I’m sure there are remIners who might vote leave in a second vote, I think many more leavers will switch, and also that we’ll see an increased turnout, as people who didn’t vote before do this time.

[thatdberight]

And if there were significant changes to our EU membership there would be a referendum.

Like we had for Lisbon, Maastricht and the like? Like we did when the Euro was introduced(both our decision not to join and the fundamental difference it made to Europe's economy were important)? OK.

[Jakubclaret]

I wasn’t suggesting my friend represents the mainstream of leavers, but that I doubt he’s alone in becoming disenchanted with the whole thing. When the referendum was on he was quite strident in terms of backing leave, but having watched events since then he told me he’d happily turn the clock back.

I can remember a year ago a lot of people saying they’d voted remain, and now just want the government to get on with it; but I don’t hear that as much now. What is there to look forward to? That we’ll be “free”? If people’s lives are disrupted as seems likely, I can’t see many dancing in the streets over this, as I don’t think anyone really felt oppressed anyway.

There is also a limit to which people can ignore the gloomy predictions. They’re relentless, and I’m not seeing many positive fact based ones from leave.

So whereas I’m sure there are remIners who might vote leave in a second vote, I think many more leavers will switch, and also that we’ll see an increased turnout, as people who didn’t vote before do this time.

I don't pay much attention to the predictions by economists as it can be logically argued that remaining within the EU benefits them personally, similar to salespeople in my view, I’d also argue that there’s sufficient enough remain who have now changed to leave because it’s become obvious that the EU are inflexible & as a result don’t wish to remain. Don’t buy into people’s lives will be disrupted, maybe big business fatcats who might lose out on cheap labour & may have to pay somebody a decent honest wage, plenty of normal working class people voted for brexit with a clear open mind & I’d also wager the day we leave people will be celebrating & hopefully EU shackle free.

[RingoMcCartney]

Oh goody!

Another thread whereby Remoaners prove they simply don't accept they lost, by each and every post they make.

Like the bore in the pub banging on about the fact it was " definately off side", after a narrow, 1.0 home defeat.

Let it go lads. Please.

Democracy. Just like being a claret. It means, sometimes, you lose.

Accept it with dignity. Or do the rest of us a favour and **** off.

[LifeafterRobbie]

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

A proof reader would pick up 'have' not 'of' for you too

[Wile E Coyote]

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

pathetic comment

[Imploding Turtle]

Like we had for Lisbon, Maastricht and the like? Like we did when the Euro was introduced(both our decision not to join and the fundamental difference it made to Europe's economy were important)? OK.

At some point all you're doing is demonstrating how the EU have bent over backwards to accommodate us.

[Damo]

Not a feasible option, we need an “informed” referendum this time, one that we were denied in 2016.

Thankfully more and more people are coming around to that view.

The only people who want a 2nd vote are the hard core remainers who cannot accept the result of the referendum.
While they may be more vocal than the normal people who just want to get on with things, I doubt very much that there is any kind of movement towards being unable to accept brexit

[PutTheWheelieBinsOut]

At some point all you're doing is demonstrating how the EU have bent over backwards to accommodate us.

How did the EU bend over backwards to accommodate us?
What have we stopped them achieving?
What are the goals that we have maybe stopped or delayed?
How have we disrupted the likes of Juncker, Tusk and Schulz and their vision for Europe?

I'm deeply troubled at the EU having to bend over backwards for the UK. How very dare we do that to a great institution, I think it's only fair that now we go our own path and the EU can go theres, it's emotional but all things come to an end

[box_of_frogs]

pathetic comment

Pray tell why Nicola?

[AndrewJB]

The only people who want a 2nd vote are the hard core remainers who cannot accept the result of the referendum.
While they may be more vocal than the normal people who just want to get on with things, I doubt very much that there is any kind of movement towards being unable to accept brexit

The only people who wanted the 2016 referendum were a small percentage of the public. For most people Europe was a minor issue and nothing more. It was made a major issue by the fact of the referendum, which was foisted upon a largely unwilling public, and once underway was inescapable.

A lot more support for a second referendum than the first one, and nothing wrong with another expression of democracy. If remain wins a second vote I’d be happy to have a third if the public mood changes again.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/04/15/he ... tant-issu/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Dy1geo]

To make it fair what about 4 options to even it up, remain as we are, remain but with controls on freedom of movement, leave with a deal whatever that is or leave completely.

[Sproggy]

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

Still waiting for this. It equates to £576,000,000 a week. Which is too big to get on the side of a bus.

George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence.

In a sign of the panic gripping the remain campaign, the chancellor plans to say that the hit to the economy will be so large that he will have little choice but to tear apart Conservative manifesto promises in an emergency budget delivered within weeks of an out vote.
“Far from freeing up money to spend on public services as the leave campaign would like you to believe, quitting the EU would mean less money,” Osborne will say. “Billions less. It’s a lose-lose situation for British families and we shouldn’t risk it.”

The chancellor will spell out his concerns at an event where he will be joined by his predecessor, Alistair Darling. The Labour politician will say he is more worried now than he was during the 2008 financial crisis, arguing that a Brexit vote will result in not just one emergency budget but “one after another”.

The pair will publish an “illustrative budget scorecard” comprising a long list of the sort of measures they say may have to be implemented including:
£15bn of tax rises, comprising a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax to 22%, a 3p rise in the higher rate to 43% plus a 5% rise in the inheritance tax rate to 45p
An increase in alcohol and petrol duties by 5%
Spending cuts worth £15bn, including a 2% reduction for health, defence and education, equivalent to £2.5bn, £1.2bn, £1.15bn a year respectively
Larger cuts of 5% from policing, transport and local government budgets

[JohnMcGreal]

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.

Fair play Rick. One thing is certain, you won't be on your own. If you put the hardcore leavers to one side (difficult as they're the ones who tend to make the most noise), I think the majority of leave voters were in the same position as you in 2016, where they were genuinely undecided and could just as easily have voted the other way.

They're the votes that will be most likely to turn in the event of a new referendum. They probably won't shout about it, but I think on the day, the 'shy' vote will vote overwhelmingly to remain, inflicting a heavy defeat for leave.

Hardcore leavers who have doubled down since 2016 probably suspect this as well, which is why they're absolutely petrified of it.

[Northerner]

I accept the result, just think its that ridiculous we should try and stop it. Just like when a party wins an election and many people spend the next fees years campaigning to oust them.

"No downside whatsoever" is along the lines of the quotes from David Davis the guy who was in charge of brexit for 2 years, who now after he resigned has all the answers after making no progress.

I actually prefer the leavers who don't lie or throw claims around, the ones who just say they want out even though they know people will be worse off. At least they are honest.

[Lancasterclaret]

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear.

Still waiting for this. It equates to £576,000,000 a week. Which is too big to get on the side of a bus.

George Osborne will warn that he would have to fill the £30bn black hole in public finances triggered by a vote to leave the European Union by hiking income tax, alcohol and petrol duties and making massive cuts to the NHS, schools and defence.

In a sign of the panic gripping the remain campaign, the chancellor plans to say that the hit to the economy will be so large that he will have little choice but to tear apart Conservative manifesto promises in an emergency budget delivered within weeks of an out vote.
“Far from freeing up money to spend on public services as the leave campaign would like you to believe, quitting the EU would mean less money,” Osborne will say. “Billions less. It’s a lose-lose situation for British families and we shouldn’t risk it.”

The chancellor will spell out his concerns at an event where he will be joined by his predecessor, Alistair Darling. The Labour politician will say he is more worried now than he was during the 2008 financial crisis, arguing that a Brexit vote will result in not just one emergency budget but “one after another”.

The pair will publish an “illustrative budget scorecard” comprising a long list of the sort of measures they say may have to be implemented including:
£15bn of tax rises, comprising a 2p rise in the basic rate of income tax to 22%, a 3p rise in the higher rate to 43% plus a 5% rise in the inheritance tax rate to 45p
An increase in alcohol and petrol duties by 5%
Spending cuts worth £15bn, including a 2% reduction for health, defence and education, equivalent to £2.5bn, £1.2bn, £1.15bn a year respectively
Larger cuts of 5% from policing, transport and local government budgets

To be fair, that does sound a lot better than the reality of stockpiling food and medicines and having a minister for food distribution.