-
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
UK Revoke Article 50
"Revoke Article 50", "have another referendum" I just can't get my head around the utter stupidity of people who think this would resolve anything.
Don't these MP's think? Do they expect the 17.2m who voted to leave to simply shrug their shoulders and accept staying in the EU or to respect the result of a 2nd referendum if the vote is to remain? Dangerous naivety of a staggering degree.
The dangers of a winner takes all referendum. At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
UK Revoke Article 50
"Revoke Article 50", "have another referendum" I just can't get my head around the utter stupidity of people who think this would resolve anything.
Don't these MP's think? Do they expect the 17.2m who voted to leave to simply shrug their shoulders and accept staying in the EU or to respect the result of a 2nd referendum if the vote is to remain? Dangerous naivety of a staggering degree.
PM May may have fucked things up but she hasn't anything like the self-indulgence and contempt for voters whole swathes of MPs have.
I think you may have mis-read my post, either that or I am mis-understanding your point. The UK revoke Article 50 was not from any MPs (in this instance) but an EU spokesman.
-
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
Ah, sorry. We fuck off with no deal on the table.
-
At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
That's how it works. That's how the HoC - which voted by a huge margin for the referendum - told the people it would work.
If it didn't work that way there'd be no point in holding any vote - not even for your local MP
-
@Catogrande I was referring to the MPs and campaign groups who want to simply revoke A50 as well as the EU suggesting that as an option . My fault - I should have made it clearer,
-
@Catogrande said in Brexit:
@MajorRage said in Brexit:
@Catogrande option 2 is rather vague!
Ah, sorry. We fuck off with no deal on the table.
Think EU made it clear last night that ain’t happening!!!
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
At the moment the 16.4m who voted to remain are being expected to shrug their shoulders an accept leaving.
That's how it works. That's how the HoC - which voted by a huge margin for the referendum - told the people it would work.
If it didn't work that way there'd be no point in holding any vote - not even for your local MP
I understand that’s how it works. Doesn’t change the fact that just under half the country didn’t want any of this. That’s a sizeable chunk of the population if you are talking about people’s wants being ignored.
That’s why I said it was a problem with winner takes all.
The MP situation is different. You get to confirm or deny the result at set periods -
Doesn’t change the fact that just under half the country didn’t want any of this.
Isn't the same with any election though - including the referendum on joining the EU 40+ years ago? And accepting the will of the majority has always been the covenant between the electorate and government.
Enough of the seriousness shit - here's Guido's take on May and yesterdays' EU summit...
-
@Victor-Meldrew its just seems incongruous to talk about 'ignoring the will of 17.2million' when the nature of the referendum also means 'ignoring the will of 16.4 million'
The big difference is the effect of the outcome and no facility to charge your mind three years later if it turns out wrong. -
-
Also worth adding that I dont agree that it was at all clear what you thought "it" was is what would happen.
There was huge talk from the bulk of Leave campaigners about how we could retain all sorts of benefits which were total bollocks unless some form of membership was kept.
The "will of the people" is an absolute rubbish phrase in such a close referendum (and it was extremely close!)
I am one of the "idiots" who happens to think that clearly what was voted for is very hard to implement and should be subject to a confirmation referendum. All this talk of damaging democracy is just people knowing that they have a chance their "side" will lose now that the general public can see what is actually involved. More democracy based on facts rather than supposition is a good idea for this scale of long lasting change.
Cameron's legacy is fucked and May is a joke but there is still a good way to check if this is the cliff we want to leap over and if it is the right thing it will be easy to win another referendum.
Remember, it doesn't end with the deal, it hasn't even fucking started yet with the future relationship! This will be hanging over everyone in the UK for years and I personally think it is a mistake but if people vote with the facts at hand to still go ahead it is hard to argue.
Expect to be pilloried here as a big proportion of the posters are what I would call more "right wing" but I do like to challenge my own views by reading your thoughts so figured I should chip in occasionally.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
second referendum
It was actually kicked off before the result was known by Nigel Farage who said at 52 to 48 this would be unfinished business. (When it was predicted to be a close remain win)
He changed his mind when it went his way funnily enough....
-
@Davesofthunder said in Brexit:
He changed his mind when it went his way funnily enough....
You do know that Farage backs a second referendum?
-
@Davesofthunder said in Brexit:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Brexit:
second referendum
It was actually kicked off before the result was known by Nigel Farage who said at 52 to 48 this would be unfinished business. (When it was predicted to be a close remain win)
He changed his mind when it went his way funnily enough....
Can kind of understand the logic there. Being in the EU for decades, knowing what it is and people getting increasingly disatisfied with the EU's overreach. Did he mean an immediate referendum or another in many years time kind of like how I'd imagine Australia's Republic referendum might pop up again.
-
@Davesofthunder said in Brexit:
Also worth adding that I dont agree that it was at all clear what you thought "it" was is what would happen.
There was huge talk from the bulk of Leave campaigners about how we could retain all sorts of benefits which were total bollocks unless some form of membership was kept.
The "will of the people" is an absolute rubbish phrase in such a close referendum (and it was extremely close!)
I am one of the "idiots" who happens to think that clearly what was voted for is very hard to implement and should be subject to a confirmation referendum. All this talk of damaging democracy is just people knowing that they have a chance their "side" will lose now that the general public can see what is actually involved. More democracy based on facts rather than supposition is a good idea for this scale of long lasting change.
Cameron's legacy is fucked and May is a joke but there is still a good way to check if this is the cliff we want to leap over and if it is the right thing it will be easy to win another referendum.
Remember, it doesn't end with the deal, it hasn't even fucking started yet with the future relationship! This will be hanging over everyone in the UK for years and I personally think it is a mistake but if people vote with the facts at hand to still go ahead it is hard to argue.
Expect to be pilloried here as a big proportion of the posters are what I would call more "right wing" but I do like to challenge my own views by reading your thoughts so figured I should chip in occasionally.
The point isn't what you or I thought. Leaving the Single Market, Customs Union stopping free movement and ECJ jurisdiction if there was a Leave vote was made explicit by the political parties, Leave and Remain campaigns.
I am one of the "idiots" who happens to think that clearly what was voted for is very hard to implement and should be subject to a confirmation referendum.
Serious question: If Leave won again would you accept that or would you want another, 3rd referendum in 2-3 years time as the actual results of leaving would be, obviously, unpredictable?
-
I disagree completely on what Leave meant.
The parties etc did not make it clear. Their mouthpieces were constantly talking about the benefits we would be keeping. (Assume you live in UK so saw all this yourself?)
The old chestnut with a referendum is what is the question.
But yes if all options were put out and still voted to leave then yes I would accept.
I do think the proposal to have No deal vs May's deal is a false choice and would not accept that.
Personally would have two questions
Leave? Y/N
If we Leave Option A Vs Option B
Recognise its complicated
-
Good point. Most EU countries had serial referendums on the major changes on the EU's operations/scope - 1992, Maastricht Treaty and Lisbon. The UK was one of the few which didn't - even though pro-EU PMs like Major, Blair & Brown promised there would be one. Amazingly, once people voted to leave the EU, they are now converts to people having a choice
If they had, the level of dissatisfaction with the EU could well have been reduced.
-
I see the logic of a vote on what sort ot leave we have. But not a 2nd one on Leave/Remain.
I have zero faith that a 2nd Leave vote would be respected by the Remain lobby They didn't last time so why would they now? - And I voted Remain
-
Whereas I think if you are checking the "so called Will of the people" you should actually ask the relevant question and that is leave Vs Remain.
It was extraordinarily close and hasn't been a screw up only because of May (though God she has not helped!) but because it just might not be as easy or as good as it was promised when it was just a concept without having to back it up.
People say it hasn't been respected, I would say every one of the brexiteers who claimed it would be easy ran with their tails between their legs when it wasn't.
Brexit