Second referendum time? SF Poll

[woodview]

1 hour ago, Cyclone said:

This has been the nonsense the brexiteers have spouted for 2 years now.  The EU don't seem to agree though that we are important enough to have our cake and eat it.

I think you have a tendency to latch on to things hardliners say and project that onto other people. We aren't the be-all and end-all of the world. People won't bow to us. We are however a strong, resourceful, large market, that other markets will try to form a good relationship with, in exactly the same way they'll try to form good relationships with other markets.

As I said in another post somewhere the Armageddon and Nirvana that both extremes have spouted are BOTH nonesense. The truth is in the middle, and that's what most level minded people think.

[Cyclone]

You seem to be living in a dream world regarding how the negotiations are going.

[Cyclone]

On 11/21/2018 at 2:50 PM, sheffbag said:

Cyclone - that Teenagers/dead people argument is really not valid at all.  Should we have re-run the original referendum to join the common market every 5 years because "teenagers could now vote and old people are dead?"

A referendum is exactly that. a vote of the people who are eligible at the time of the vote. No point saying "well all the oldies who voted to leave are now dead and the kids who can now vote will all want to stay," 

The new voters still wouldn't have a clue what they are voting are. None of us really did in the first place. That's the point i'm trying to make. 

I disagree, it's absolutely valid since we're still arguing about what brexit means and whether the referendum voters were mislead.

If we haven't enacted the result, which we haven't, and we now think that a majority would vote in favour to stay, then re-run it and check.  At the very least we have a better idea of what leaving really means now and people can vote in a more informed way.

[woodview]

27 minutes ago, Cyclone said:

I disagree, it's absolutely valid since we're still arguing about what brexit means and whether the referendum voters were mislead.

If we haven't enacted the result, which we haven't, and we now think that a majority would vote in favour to stay, then re-run it and check.  At the very least we have a better idea of what leaving really means now and people can vote in a more informed way.

Would you say the worse case scenarios highlighted in the Remain campaign are diminished now? (I know what you think to the Leave claims) . But do you think the economic impact warned of, is less with this deal than was proposed could possibly happen?

[Cyclone]

I've not read the details of the latest deal being discussed, but from a summary it sounds a lot like EU lite membership.  Which basically means we have to comply with a lot of regulation and law from europe, but without any input on creating that regulation and law.

I can't see how this could possibly be seen as superior to our current position where we're a key member guiding the creation of regulation and law, we have a veto on many matters and we secure opt-outs for many other things that we don't like.

We're basically giving up any control or oversight and shifting our position from a senior member to a very junior hanger on.

[truman]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

Would you say the worse case scenarios highlighted in the Remain campaign are diminished now? (I know what you think to the Leave claims) . But do you think the economic impact warned of, is less with this deal than was proposed could possibly happen?

What, you mean still being part of the EU in a sense...is that what Brexit is? Or did it mean "Brexit"? 

[RollingJ]

My one & only post on this subject - IF a second referendum was held and overturned the first result, would I be allowed to cry 'foul' and demand a third?

 

I ask this as someone who voted against entry into the then EEC as championed by Ted Heath, and I have never changed my mind - despite reading many arguments for and against.

[Guest makapaka]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I disagree, it's absolutely valid since we're still arguing about what brexit means and whether the referendum voters were mislead.

If we haven't enacted the result, which we haven't, and we now think that a majority would vote in favour to stay, then re-run it and check.  At the very least we have a better idea of what leaving really means now and people can vote in a more informed way.

You can't re-run and check - the vote has been cast.

 

Telling people that won a referendum to leave the EU that their vote is being ignored is far more dangerous than inferior trade deals etc.

Edited November 23, 2018 by makapaka

[woodview]

2 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I've not read the details of the latest deal being discussed, but from a summary it sounds a lot like EU lite membership.  Which basically means we have to comply with a lot of regulation and law from europe, but without any input on creating that regulation and law.

I can't see how this could possibly be seen as superior to our current position where we're a key member guiding the creation of regulation and law, we have a veto on many matters and we secure opt-outs for many other things that we don't like.

We're basically giving up any control or oversight and shifting our position from a senior member to a very junior hanger on.

Cyclone, that's what many who want a harder brexit would say too. But, what I'm, saying is, do you perceive that this deal (along with its shortcomings) gives less of the negative financial impacts warned about in the Remain campaign, especially by the likes of Osborne?

[L00b]

2 hours ago, woodview said:

Cyclone, that's what many who want a harder brexit would say too. But, what I'm, saying is, do you perceive that this deal (along with its shortcomings) gives less of the negative financial impacts warned about in the Remain campaign, especially by the likes of Osborne?

Cyclone can answer for himself, but for what it's worth, no, the withdrawal agreement will not diminish the negative financial impacts warned about. It will just extend the timescale for their occurring, and so they will occur more gradually/less abruptly. But they will occur, as surely as because they've already started.

 

For the economical and geopolitical reasons already amply explained, and because the whole "what Brexit means" carry-on, and associated uncertainty, of the last 2 years will just continue during the transition period for the next 2 (or 4) years.

Edited November 23, 2018 by L00b