Should there be a second referendum?
- Thread starter Sasaferrato
- Start date
Sasaferrato
Super Refuser!
Whereas I wouldn't disagree that there is a paucity of expertise on the right, the left aren't exactly setting the heather alight.
Smangus
comatose at a desk
oryx
Sitting on the bok of the day
While I am a remainer I don't see a second (or third, to be absolutely correct) on EU membership to be a solution. If there were to be one, it would quite possibly turn the existing shambles into an even worse one.
If Leave win, there would be more weight added to the 'cause' of leaving the EU, the ramifications of which have not been properly considered and which quite plausibly pose a risk to just about everyone in terms of jobs, prices, health, supply, workers' rights, etc. etc. Despite what many remainers/'People's Vote' supporters think, there is a strong chance that Leave would win again.
If Remain win that could be the end of it and no doubt many people will breathe a sigh of relief. But, and this is possibly the most important issue relating to Brexit, the reasons people voted Leave will be brushed under the carpet. I didn't vote leave and would vote remain again, but I did see the vote to leave as a protest vote.
If Leave win, there would be more weight added to the 'cause' of leaving the EU, the ramifications of which have not been properly considered and which quite plausibly pose a risk to just about everyone in terms of jobs, prices, health, supply, workers' rights, etc. etc. Despite what many remainers/'People's Vote' supporters think, there is a strong chance that Leave would win again.
If Remain win that could be the end of it and no doubt many people will breathe a sigh of relief. But, and this is possibly the most important issue relating to Brexit, the reasons people voted Leave will be brushed under the carpet. I didn't vote leave and would vote remain again, but I did see the vote to leave as a protest vote.
gentlegreen
I hummus, therefore I am ...
They should be offered the chance to vote for the right sort of changes instead of fucking the country and damaging the EU.
What percentage do we think voted for racist / generally anti-"liberal" motives ?
Shippou-Sensei
4:1:2.5
Quoth the raven...
A380
How do I change this 'custom title' thing then?
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
“Also, by their very nature, Brexiters are more likely to throw a brick through their own windows.”
Riklet
procrastinación
We could have a referendum on having a referendum about another referendum. 
Short answer - No.
Because Brexit hasnt happened yet.
Because it wouldnt solve the current problems/divisions.
Because Leave would probably win again anyway.
Because asking people to vote again until they produce the right result is a cunt's trick which undermines democratic traditions and leads to unpredictable and potentially dangerous consequences. O wait.
But most of all because the EU in its current form is gradually breaking up. The ship is sinking and there's no saving it. As ever, we Brits are focusing on ourselves - not on what is happening elsewhere in Europe.
Short answer - No.
Because Brexit hasnt happened yet.
Because it wouldnt solve the current problems/divisions.
Because Leave would probably win again anyway.
Because asking people to vote again until they produce the right result is a cunt's trick which undermines democratic traditions and leads to unpredictable and potentially dangerous consequences. O wait.
But most of all because the EU in its current form is gradually breaking up. The ship is sinking and there's no saving it. As ever, we Brits are focusing on ourselves - not on what is happening elsewhere in Europe.
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
We could have a referendum on having a referendum about another referendum.
Short answer - No.
Because Brexit hasnt happened yet.
Because it wouldnt solve the current problems/divisions.
Because Leave would probably win again anyway.
Because asking people to vote again until they produce the right result is a cunt's trick which undermines democratic traditions and leads to unpredictable and potentially dangerous consequences. O wait.
But most of all because the EU in its current form is gradually breaking up. The ship is sinking and there's no saving it. As ever, we Brits are focusing on ourselves - not on what is happening elsewhere in Europe.
So what do you suggest instead? Parliament is too fractured to agree a deal, and we leave on the 29th March - are you're suggesting No Deal?
Riklet
procrastinación
I dont know. It's a mess. But we knew it would be messy.
I dont really think there's such a thing as 'no deal' tbh. I think it's a bit of a Tory loon fantasy which May is encouraging so she can get her crap deal through. There will have to be a deal.
I think the EU is weak and we should persue a variety of tactics to take advantage of that and to undermine its political leadership. Divide and conquer. e.g. Scrap the EU immigrant app and all that crap for at least a few years and push for a favourable fair transition. Better to have a few months of relative chaos than decades of it. But this will take some real spine from whoever is in charge.
Wookey
Muppet is not a slur
I think No Deal is a legal inevitability, if Parliament can't pass an agreed exit - and it doesn't look like there is any majority for any kind of deal, what we have so far is stymied on all sides. Yet we're legally obliged to leave on Brexit Day, that's happening. So without a deal passed by Parliament, a cliff-edge exit is exactly what we'll get, it's written into UK law.
I'm so glad I'm not in charge of negotiations, I really like Europeans and I'd be way too soft on them.
Teresa May is safe as houses now, so will be her in charge for the foreseeable. She has played her hand with the EU, and we've all closely read the 500-page result
so we're not going to negotiate any different before March 29th - but are you saying we push for a favourable transition after we've left (with no deal, in about 2000 hours time?)
Raheem
Well-Known Member
What's written into UK law is that we leave the EU on 29th March unless the Prime Minister decides otherwise. The italicised bit is not usually mentioned by the government front bench, but it's the most important bit.
teqniq
DisMembered
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
The European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is just that, an act of Parliament. Only Parliament can repeal the repeal act.
cantsin
Well-Known Member
how many more 'yellow vests' do you think we'd end up with on the streets then, and for how long / doing what ?
what would our arguments be against them harassing politicians etc, that they're acting undemocratically ?
or just draft in batallions of extra OB and start banging them up en masse, f"ck these bourgie concerns re : democracy ?
what would be the impact at the ballot box do we think ?
( northern league vote % obviously v out of date, now they're in govt, preventing desperate migrants from setting foot in Italy etc)
Attachments
No, simply because it won't solve anything. If there was a realistic opportunity for a reasonable majority either way it would be worthwhile but as it stands I just don't see that. The country, political parties, families and friendship groups are all split on this.
I suppose another small majority for leave might reject the notion that 'people didn't know what they were voting for' and may help to bring some resolution but I'm not convinced. Also I think there is a realistic prospect of Brexiteers calling for a boycott of the vote to question its legitimacy, not that they were in any way bothered about the 12 million (or whatever is was) that didn't vote last time. Let's face it though this whole thing was rabbit hole territory from the start.
I suppose another small majority for leave might reject the notion that 'people didn't know what they were voting for' and may help to bring some resolution but I'm not convinced. Also I think there is a realistic prospect of Brexiteers calling for a boycott of the vote to question its legitimacy, not that they were in any way bothered about the 12 million (or whatever is was) that didn't vote last time. Let's face it though this whole thing was rabbit hole territory from the start.
See, this is what I don't understand. If a 1st vote is legitimate then a 2nd vote must also be legitimate?
If a party wins a general election and set about implementing their manifesto do we all just say 'ah well, they won fair and square and after all it was in their manifesto'? Not likely is it? When the 2017 election was called did we all stand aghast and say the result of the 2015 election must stand because it was the will of the people? No.
Why is this plebiscite sacrosanct? Why can't this one be overturned by a democratic exercise like every other plebiscite?
As I say I'm against a second referendum but I don't understand this argument. I'm clearly missing something.
Anyway, democracy in this country has always been a badly acted farce so, you know...
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I don't get that either. I also don't get the idea that cancelling brexit cos there's no agreed good way found to do it is 'ignoring the referendum'. Whatever else has happened in the last 30 months, ignoring the referendum is most emphatically not on the list.
The question all parties are wrestling with isn't 'how the fuck do we do this?'. It's 'how the fuck do we do this without being totally crushed politically immediately afterwards.' That's all these questions of 'legitimacy' about cancelling brexit or a second referendum really mean.
A Tory leadership which cancels brexit or facilitates a second referendum will be destroyed. A Labour leadership which does the same has a better chance I think, but would then face a huge and energetic far-right political movement. That's what's at stake here.
A Tory leadership which cancels brexit or facilitates a second referendum will be destroyed. A Labour leadership which does the same has a better chance I think, but would then face a huge and energetic far-right political movement. That's what's at stake here.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
We should have a referendum to come back in, straight after we leave. Like an annoying cat at the door.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
When legislators resort to plebiscite it is an admission of the limits of representative democracy to effect the sovereignty of the people. That doesn't mean that the outcome(s) of plebiscites should necessarily be 'sacrosanct', but enabling the direct sovereign will of the electorate means that it is problematic to equate the outcome with regular electoral events to select representatives.
Of course it is legitimate to oppose the 2016 result but, in doing so, it is qualitatively different to opposing the mediated, represented will of the people.
But, to cut to the chase, my feeling is that having enabled direct sovereignty, our elected representatives should either effect the outcome or admit that they can't. Arguably the latter could, in the long-run, have as profound an impact on our constitution as leaving the supra-state.
Yes, they should admit they can't because when even the cheerleaders for Brexit can't even agree on what Brexit actually is then where do you go from here?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
This is one of the many contradictions of the situation. There was no plan in place for how to effect the outcome if it was 'leave', and no set of politicians with a democratic mandate that wanted to enact any plan. So the first bit of that leaves a huge problem that doesn't necessarily have a solution without consequences that those enacting it will be held responsible for, and the second bit leaves a sense of distrust in anyone charged with trying. You can't hold an electorate accountable for the consequences of a decision, and May, for instance, is using that as a shield to try to protect herself from any accountability for her decisions regarding brexit. That shouldn't wash, and is profoundly undemocratic within our system - elected representatives given responsibility to make decisions and held accountable for the consequences is the main plank of the UK system.
So admitting that they can't do it isn't such an affront to democracy. Calling a referendum without any idea how to effect one of the two possible outcomes was the affront to democracy. It's the lesson to be learned - don't call a referendum without a clear idea of what each answer means: 'no change' = as you were; 'change' = this executive will be mandated to implement this plan. But it would only be a mandate to implement a plan, not a means to absolve yourself of any responsibility for adverse consequences arising from that plan.
Last edited:
The idea of a second referendum is shit. You don’t keep reasking the same question every few years.
Personally, my preference is that A50 is cancelled, the government recommits itself to going through with Brexit once they are ready to do so and then we have some proper politics to decide how and what this will mean before retriggering A50. I want to see us leave the EU - particularly now we’ve gone this far down the road and the EU have done the same — but I don’t need it to happen RFN or anything. A five or ten year time horizon to do it properly would allow for much better preparation.
Personally, my preference is that A50 is cancelled, the government recommits itself to going through with Brexit once they are ready to do so and then we have some proper politics to decide how and what this will mean before retriggering A50. I want to see us leave the EU - particularly now we’ve gone this far down the road and the EU have done the same — but I don’t need it to happen RFN or anything. A five or ten year time horizon to do it properly would allow for much better preparation.
Mr Moose
What the hell are we supposed to tell the kids?
What do you expect to happen if the latter is admitted? We had a war based on lies where hundreds of thousands died and that’s hardly rocked the boat.
Politicians not delivering, whatever next?
Similar threads
- Poll
