Second referendum time? SF Poll

[helloitsonly]

13 hours ago, Phanerothyme said:

If I'd had a vote I would have voted remain, but I think a second referendum on the same question is a very bad idea.

 

A second referendum is likely to be very close, like the first one, and it won't heal divisions or bring  stability, whatever the result.

 

 

why did you not have a vote???

[Phanerothyme]

Because I'm not a UK citizen. I emigrated to this country, and was given indefinite leave to remain, in 1970.

[BrexitGuy]

6 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You're still convinced that 100% of the electorate voted then?  We all know they didn't, turnout was quite high at about 72% wasn't it?

You do the maths, what's 51.89% of 72% ?

I'm not sure how this is relevant. If 3 people in the country voted, and everyone else stayed at home, and 2 of the people voted leave..... Then leave would be the result. What is it about folk constantly banging on about what might have been if everyone had voted? They didn't, and that was their lookout on the day. Too late to grumble after the horse has left the paddock. You don't need maths cycloner, as it don't mean Jack.

17 hours ago, apelike said:

But it seems its only you that keeps stating "its not the will of the people" when most do actually realise that. In a democracy it can only be determined by those that vote (the electorate) who in this case is classed as the will of the people. You seem to accept and agree that the Good Friday Agreement was "endorsed by the vast majority of people in Ireland" as well when that was not the case either as in the Republic only 56% of the electorate voted. 

Well said. 

6 hours ago, Halibut said:

Bugger politeness. The people were lied to and manipulated and it's now emerged that Brexit of whatever form will be a total bloody disaster.

 

In your opinion. But sadly your opinion didn't count did it?

[ANGELFIRE1]

17 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

I'm not talking about accepting the result, I am talikg about people continually referring to Brexit as the will of the people when it clearly isn't.

 

Here you are TC I will put this fictitious scenario before you to examine.

 

A Country has a referendum vote put to it. 

 

But due to some reason only 3 people vote, the rest of the population 10million abstain or can't be bothered to vote.

 

The result is, 2 vote yes, 1 votes no, the yes vote is carried.

 

You cannot say the will of the people has been ignored by stating only 3 voted and 10 million did not.

 

The 10 million who declined to vote do not come into the equation in any way, shape or form.

 

The 3 votes cast count, the 10 million simply don't as there is nothing to count from them.

 

A ridiculous outcome I agree but Democracy must Prevail, so the 2 votes win.

 

Transfer the above to Brexit and apply the same logic.

 

Brexit is carried as it received the most votes, all the other arguments over percentages are simply irrelevant.

 

Angel1.

[apelike]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You're still convinced that 100% of the electorate voted then? 

I have never mentioned or stated anything like the above, perhaps you could point to a post where I did? Its TCH that keeps on saying that as the majority of the population in the UK didnt vote to leave (which I agreed was the case) then its not the will of the people. What I have been pointing out is what is classed in our democracy as the will of the people, and that is the electorate and the makeup of the electorate is for parliament to decide. It is never determined by population.

5 hours ago, Padders said:

In a general election you have all the facts at your fingertips,  inflation, unemployment, taxes, vat, interests rates  etc etc. you then vote accordingly, also you can change your mind after 5 yrs.

But we can change our minds if parliament gives us the chance of another referendum in 5 years time also. Do we cancel the results of a GE because some are not happy with the outcome and hold it again?

Edited December 8, 2018 by apelike

[woodview]

7 hours ago, Halibut said:

Bugger politeness. The people were lied to and manipulated and it's now emerged that Brexit of whatever form will be a total bloody disaster.

 

Yes, also lied to by Mr Cameron and Osborne. Government funded lies. Just as bad / worse than the Brexit freelancer lies.

8 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You're still convinced that 100% of the electorate voted then?  We all know they didn't, turnout was quite high at about 72% wasn't it?

You do the maths, what's 51.89% of 72% ?

Cyclone, what % turnout / majority would you accept in a 2nd referendum, that gave a 'remain' decision? Would it have to be 60%+ of those entitled to vote, for example?

That referendum would be asking politicians to repeal laws enacted already to enable Brexit, so presumably on the lines of your current thinking, it would have to be a significant percentage? That assumes that your argument works both ways............

[helloitsonly]

4 hours ago, Phanerothyme said:

Because I'm not a UK citizen. I emigrated to this country, and was given indefinite leave to remain, in 1970.

ok good for you and without being rude its not really any of your business, you have to accept the result which it looks like you do. unlike others.

[woodview]

9 minutes ago, helloitsonly said:

ok good for you and without being rude its not really any of your business, you have to accept the result which it looks like you do. unlike others.

'Without being rude' you have been. They have lived here for 48 years are engaging in a conversation about a topic that will affect everyone who lives here. So it really is lots of their business, they simply arent allowed to vote.

[andyofborg]

40 minutes ago, woodview said:

Yes, also lied to by Mr Cameron and Osborne. Government funded lies. Just as bad / worse than the Brexit freelancer lies.

Cyclone, what % turnout / majority would you accept in a 2nd referendum, that gave a 'remain' decision? Would it have to be 60%+ of those entitled to vote, for example?

That referendum would be asking politicians to repeal laws enacted already to enable Brexit, so presumably on the lines of your current thinking, it would have to be a significant percentage? That assumes that your argument works both ways............

given the importance  of the result then there should have been the requirement for a supermajority based on both turnout and winning majority.

[helloitsonly]

9 minutes ago, woodview said:

'Without being rude' you have been. They have lived here for 48 years are engaging in a conversation about a topic that will affect everyone who lives here. So it really is lots of their business, they simply arent allowed to vote.

i think you missed the point only uk citizens can decide the outcome of the referendum ? ok clear enough or do you need help?