Should there be a second referendum? New question.

[danny la rouge]

Well, the will of Urban at least is clear.

Among those you asked. I was excluded from this poll.

 

[chilango]

Among those you asked. I was excluded from this poll.

Me too.

Kinda like the real one really....

 

[cupid_stunt]

Well, the will of Urban at least is clear.

As clear as mud.

 

[Pickman's model]

As clear as mud.

No it's crystal clear, no one knows what it is

 

[Sasaferrato]

60% favour a second referendum.

 

[danny la rouge]

60% favour a second referendum.

In a flawed poll.

 

[cupid_stunt]

60% favour a second referendum.

On a site where well over 60% are remainders.

In the real world, the polls are showing a majority in favour of remaining, at similar levels as before, and we all know how that turned out.

 

[andysays]

60% favour a second referendum.

I demand a recount...

 

[planetgeli]

I think, like chilango earlier possibly, the notion of there being a second referendum is bollocks isn't it? You really think they'll let the public fuck this up twice?

 

[not-bono-ever]

it in the interest of the EU that there is no referendum on this

 

[Sasaferrato]

In a flawed poll.

You entirely free to conduct your own poll you know.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Among those you asked. I was excluded from this poll.

I seem to recall seeking your opinion, outwith the poll. You didn't seem to have one IIRC.

 

[butchersapron]

I seem to recall seeking your opinion, outwith the poll. You didn't seem to have one IIRC.

I quote, and thusly aforethought

 

[danny la rouge]

I seem to recall seeking your opinion, outwith the poll. You didn't seem to have one IIRC.

You said "what do you wish for?" Pizza.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Surely, magic beans on toast.

 

[butchersapron]

#metoo_pizza

 

[danny la rouge]

But I don't think there should be a second Brexit referendum, Sasaferrato . That's for a number of reasons. First, I'm not convinced of its fairness. There was a vote: an answer was given. If a question is being honestly, sincerely and genuinely asked, you don't keep asking it just because you don't like the answer. I have no general objection to referendums. I just think the impulse for a second one in this case untrustworthy. That's an ethical reason. Secondly comes a tactical reason: I think a second referendum would take the pressure off the politicians. I think that's exactly the wrong thing to do. More pressure should be piled onto them. The fissures will give eventually. It is not in our interests to bail the political class out. It is in our interests to weaken them, the better to extract demands. Their distress is our delight. Thirdly, on a related note, but more generally, it is not the job of the left to provide solutions for the ruling class. Our efforts should not be expended on problems of their making. We can't fix capitalism. It's neither our job nor is it even possible. I was amused yesterday to hear Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO, explain why the UK should not leave the EU with no deal and operate under WTO rules. Rules he promotes. Rules he thinks the UK should use in its dealings with New Zealand and Australia. I certainly don't think I should be expending any energy helping him square that circle. Far better, I think, to let them slog that one out themselves.

So, far from having "no opinion", you can see I have much to say on the matter. For the record, I voted Remain. I don't feel I'm "a Remainer", though. And I don't see states or supra states as forming any part of my identity. My Europeanness is like my Britishness: neither contingent on statehood, on polity, nor on paperwork imposed by the bureaucracies of the superstructure. Rather, it is a geographical fact.

 

[Jon-of-arc]

What needs to happen is a two question second referendum that obviously weighs the odds heavily in favour of remain with some inherently biased questions...

Question 1,

In light of us having completely fucked up the leave negotiation and subsequent attempt to get our preposterous deal through parliament, should we abandon the whole cluster fuck and remain in the EU?

Yes
or
No

Question 2,
If we really must leave the EU, should we commit economic suicide and crash out with no deal, or pursue some watered down but obviously sensible Brexit, modelled after either Canada or Norway, so that we can say we've left the EU even though we haven't really?

No deal
or
Canada+/Norway

I sincerely believe that this is the only viable way out of our pridicament.

 

[mojo pixy]

But I don't think there should be a second Brexit referendum, Sasaferrato . That's for a number of reasons. First, I'm not convinced of its fairness. There was a vote: an answer was given. If a question is being honestly, sincerely and genuinely asked, you don't keep asking it just because you don't like the answer. I have no general objection to referendums. I just think the impulse for a second one in this case untrustworthy. That's an ethical reason. Secondly comes a tactical reason: I think a second referendum would take the pressure off the politicians. I think that's exactly the wrong thing to do. More pressure should be piled onto them. The fissures will give eventually. It is not in our interests to bail the political class out. It is in our interests to weaken them, the better to extract demands. Their distress is our delight. Thirdly, on a related note, but more generally, it is not the job of the left to provide solutions for the ruling class. Our efforts should not be expended on problems of their making. We can't fix capitalism. It's neither our job nor is it even possible. I was amused yesterday to hear Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO, explain why the UK should not leave the EU with no deal and operate under WTO rules. Rules he promotes. Rules he thinks the UK should use in its dealings with New Zealand and Australia. I certainly don't think I should be expending any energy helping him square that circle. Far better, I think, to let them slog that one out themselves.

So, far from having "no opinion", you can see I have much to say on the matter. For the record, I voted Remain. I don't feel I'm "a Remainer", though. And I don't see states or supra states as forming any part of my identity. My Europeanness is like my Britishness: neither contingent on statehood, on polity, nor on paperwork imposed by the bureaucracies of the superstructure. Rather, it is a geographical fact.

I wanted to like this post several times but I can't, so I'm quoting it .. especially the bits in bold. Exact.

 

[not-bono-ever]

Why not have a referendum on whether there should be a referendum ?

 

[pesh]

 

[Sasaferrato]

But I don't think there should be a second Brexit referendum, Sasaferrato . That's for a number of reasons. First, I'm not convinced of its fairness. There was a vote: an answer was given. If a question is being honestly, sincerely and genuinely asked, you don't keep asking it just because you don't like the answer. I have no general objection to referendums. I just think the impulse for a second one in this case untrustworthy. That's an ethical reason. Secondly comes a tactical reason: I think a second referendum would take the pressure off the politicians. I think that's exactly the wrong thing to do. More pressure should be piled onto them. The fissures will give eventually. It is not in our interests to bail the political class out. It is in our interests to weaken them, the better to extract demands. Their distress is our delight. Thirdly, on a related note, but more generally, it is not the job of the left to provide solutions for the ruling class. Our efforts should not be expended on problems of their making. We can't fix capitalism. It's neither our job nor is it even possible. I was amused yesterday to hear Pascal Lamy, the former head of the WTO, explain why the UK should not leave the EU with no deal and operate under WTO rules. Rules he promotes. Rules he thinks the UK should use in its dealings with New Zealand and Australia. I certainly don't think I should be expending any energy helping him square that circle. Far better, I think, to let them slog that one out themselves.

So, far from having "no opinion", you can see I have much to say on the matter. For the record, I voted Remain. I don't feel I'm "a Remainer", though. And I don't see states or supra states as forming any part of my identity. My Europeanness is like my Britishness: neither contingent on statehood, on polity, nor on paperwork imposed by the bureaucracies of the superstructure. Rather, it is a geographical fact.

Danny, I hear what you say, and there is little, prima facie, to disagree with.

Just one point: When we voted, we didn't know what we were voting for. Now we do. On that basis, another referendum is justified. If the answer is still 'Leave', so be it. At least it is 'Leave' based on a lot more knowledge.

I suspect that the North East will regret their 'Leave' vote for generations. No UK government is going to replace the EU money spent there.

 

[maomao]

A second referendum could well give a mandate for no deal. On those grounds I think it's unlikely to happen.

 

[danny la rouge]

there is little, prima facie, to disagree with.

 

[Raheem]

A second referendum could well give a mandate for no deal.

Only if they're stupid enough to allow that as an option.

I'm not saying they're not.

 

[skyscraper101]

Maybe the EU can have us at weekends and school holidays.

 

[danny la rouge]

Maybe the EU can have us at weekends and school holidays.

I'm not going to McDonald's, though. I want pizza.

 

[butchersapron]

You'll get what your mum decides and be thankful for it. Who do you think you are?

(100% last one)

 

[chilango]

Just one point: When we voted, we didn't know what we were voting for. Now we do.
.

No we don't.

 

[butchersapron]

52% didn't know what they were voting for. The other 48% had crystal clear clarity over the past present and future of the eu and def knew what it gets up to in their mandated name.