Second referendum time? SF Poll

[RJRB]

1 hour ago, apelike said:

For the simple reason that in our democracy its parliament that decides and not the people, the bit also acknowledged by you in bold. The people had already decided in a democratically held referendum vote what they wanted. Its now up to the government and parliament to uphold (or not) that democratic decision. 

If it was as simple as you suggest then the majority of MPs would vote to stay in the EU.

However Cameron's bid to quell his Eurosceptic colleague backfired badly with the resulting mess that the Conservatives in particular and the country in general are now  trying to sort out.

Its a pity that Ryan B  did not read at least some of the previous posts,when he would have seen that all his views have been represented and the “turkeys voting for a Christmas” simile  is more applicable to those who pursue a form of Brexit that will damage the countries economy and the livelihood of many.

[Top Cats Hat]

2 hours ago, ryanb1979 said:

Sorry for the rant people, but these anti-democratic  remainers are winding me up so much at the moment.  I don't think they have the intelligence to even begin to comprehend the ramifications of democracy being ignored.

These will be the anti-democratic remainers who had to take the government to court to force them to give parliament a meaningful vote on any deal proposed?

 

Or the same anti democratic remainers calling for a second vote now that people actually know what exactly is meant by leaving the EU?

 

And if that last sentence is a thinly veiled threat, have a look at the poor turnout at the 'Brexit Betrayed' march today. If Wee Tommy and Gerard Batten can't get many people out the weekend before it looks like Brexit could be given up as a bad idea, do you really think they will get them to riot in the streets after a second referendum?

[Phanerothyme]

I can't stress strongly enough how damaging a second referendum is going to be to the country - regardless of the outcome.

 

It's looking grim to be honest - the number of reasonable outcomes is diminishing.

 

May is using the threat of a second referendum "my deal or no brexit" - but the reality is that Leave might win with an even bigger majority, and May would be out on her arse. Leaving the door open to Corbyn, Mogg, Johnson or some other dark horse to throw the whole situation into further division and chaos.

 

Take the deal, and let's just get on with it.

What if remain wins? Best of 3? You think that UKIP and the Tories will "get over it"? You think the Leavers, and let's face facts - the lunatic fringe of the leave camp is really, really unpleasant - won't feel emboldened and invigorated by a new fight against the establishment?

A second plebiscite will open the box and release the furies. The only hope clinging to the lid will be that, in 40 years time, the UK might rejoin...

Edited December 10, 2018 by Phanerothyme

[Top Cats Hat]

30 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

You think the Leavers, and let's face facts - the lunatic fringe of the leave camp is really, really unpleasant - won't feel emboldened and invigorated by a new fight against the establishment?

The lunatic fringe of the leave camp struggled to get even 4000 people onto the streets of London today, and that is on the eve of a vote that could bury Brexit.

 

And this 'best of three' nonsense is getting very tiresome now. The campaign for a second referendum has come about for two main reasons. The first is that many people didn't really have a clue what the reality of a leave vote meant in 2016. The second is that support for leave may have won an advisory referendum but they have never made up a majority of the electorate. Not in 2016 and certainly not now.

 

Both the above are very valid reasons to revisit the question. If remain win another referendum a third referendum would only be justified if it could be demonstrated that there was likely to be a majority in favour of leaving the EU. As the demographic of leave supporters points to the older voter, as time goes on the likelihood of a leave majority will reduce year by year.

 

That is why Brexiteers are getting so desperate. They know that this is their only chance and if they lose it, it will be gone forever.

[Phanerothyme]

Revisit the question by all means. Just not with another plebiscite.

 

I don't understand that when one is such a disaster, we seem to be heading for another one.

What happens if its 49:51 for remain - is that still "unfinished business"?

 

We don't have time for the uncertainty. It could trigger a power struggle in the ruling party, which is in power until the next election.

It's insanity upon insanity.

 

And also ... best of three may be tiresome to you but it is a valid point. You cannot guarantee the next one won't be just as mendacious and inflammatory. The campaigning isn't going to be more moderate is it?
 

So then we're faced with having had two flawed plebiscites, and still not having settled the question...

What then? What do we do when we've had two referendums, and still don't have a resolution?

 

 

[Top Cats Hat]

2 minutes ago, Phanerothyme said:

Revisit the question by all means. Just not with another plebiscite

I agree with you.

 

I have always said that I don't support a second referendum. The first referendum did not oblige any government to leave the EU as it was advisory only and the result was 37% vs 36% which was at best inconclusive. 

 

In my opinion, Brexit could simply be stopped by an act of Parliament possibly in conjunction with some form of quasi public inquiry into the issues raised by the referendum but from the position of a safe and secure economy which we desperately need coming out of a recession.

 

I suspect though, that the 'powers that be' will see a second referendum as a way to legitigimse pulling out of Brexit.

[apelike]

3 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

These will be the anti-democratic remainers who had to take the government to court to force them to give parliament a meaningful vote on any deal proposed?

As far as I know this government were not taken to court to force them to give parliament a meaningful vote! They had to because they lost a key vote on the brexit bill and MP's then voted to give parliament a legal guarantee of a vote on the final deal.

43 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The second is that support for leave may have won an advisory referendum but they have never made up a majority of the electorate.

Oh for Gods sake this is getting very tiresome..  How many times do you need reminding that its not the majority of the electorate that counts, its the majority of votes by the electorate on the day that counts and leave got that majority. One which was also accepted by parliament as well despite you keep harping on about it being advisory only.

Edited December 10, 2018 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat]

16 minutes ago, apelike said:

Oh for Gods sake this is getting very tiresome.

Tiresome or inconvenient?

 

Most people now accept that any form of Brexit will be a disaster for the whole of the UK (apart from the very rich) but bang on about how it has to be done because the people want it.

 

The fact is that less than 40% of the electorate voted for it, so it is not what the people want. It may be tiresome to you, but is the most important statistic in this whole debate and I suspect in the weeks and months to come it wont just me who is saying it.

[apelike]

10 hours ago, Top Cats Hat said:

Tiresome or inconvenient?

 

The fact is that less than 40% of the electorate voted for it, so it is not what the people want. It may be tiresome to you, but is the most important statistic in this whole debate and I suspect in the weeks and months to come it wont just me who is saying it.

Definitely tiresome as yet again you are still spouting the same nonsense but will remind you again.. It may be a fact that less than 40% of the electorate voted for it but the results are based on the majority of the electorate who voted leave.

Edited December 10, 2018 by apelike

[Top Cats Hat]

3 minutes ago, apelike said:

Definitely tiresome as yet again you are still spouting the same nonsense but will remind you again.. It may be a fact that less than 40% of the electorate voted for it but the results are based on the majority of the electorate who voted leave.

What results?

 

It was a non-binding advisory poll which showed that there was no great desire to leave the EU.