European Second Referendum

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

But you'll have to accept that the 17M who voted for Brexit - don't all agree with this. And here is the problem.

Even Gove for example is now concretely opposed to a no deal Brexit - so there is one of the 17M plus who disagree with you.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

But you'll have to accept that the 17M who voted for Brexit - don't all agree with this. And here is the problem.

Even Gove for example is now concretely opposed to a no deal Brexit - so there is one of the 17M plus who disagree with you.

I'm not quite with you... Are you asking me what I want, or telling me what I should settle for? Who's the Nazi in that situation?

[BWFC_Insane]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

But you'll have to accept that the 17M who voted for Brexit - don't all agree with this. And here is the problem.

Even Gove for example is now concretely opposed to a no deal Brexit - so there is one of the 17M plus who disagree with you.

I'm not quite with you... Are you asking me what I want, or telling me what I should settle for? Who's the Nazi in that situation?

I'm asking - how do you achieve what you want? Because right now the only way I can see it is via a 2nd democratic process...yet you don't want one.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

But you'll have to accept that the 17M who voted for Brexit - don't all agree with this. And here is the problem.

Even Gove for example is now concretely opposed to a no deal Brexit - so there is one of the 17M plus who disagree with you.

I'm not quite with you... Are you asking me what I want, or telling me what I should settle for? Who's the Nazi in that situation?

To put it another way... If Pope Francis argues with his cardinals that priests should stop abusing choirboys, and some of his cardinals say, "well ok, we'll restrict the number of buggerings to just 50 a week", do you think the Pope would be happy?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I'll tell you this much though... You and your pals who want to nullify a result you didn't like are opening a can of worms larger than you can handle. And that is a threat.

Thanks for the threat. I don't really take it seriously I'm afraid. But I would argue this - you are going to be left with 2 options as things stand.

May's deal or an extension of A50 to an indeterminable date and an indeterminable outcome.

Which of those do you choose and support? And which do you think represents the "will of the 17M".

Neither. And none. Hence the threat. Democracy is a fragile thing at the moment, you fxck about with it at your peril... Just ask any Chinaman alive in the Cultural Revolution...

And to specify - this is what I believe and support:
Brexit means Brexit. We leave the EU on 29th March. No Deal is better than a Bad Deal. Four legs good, two legs bad.

That sums me up. Totally.

But you'll have to accept that the 17M who voted for Brexit - don't all agree with this. And here is the problem.

Even Gove for example is now concretely opposed to a no deal Brexit - so there is one of the 17M plus who disagree with you.

I'm not quite with you... Are you asking me what I want, or telling me what I should settle for? Who's the Nazi in that situation?

I'm asking - how do you achieve what you want? Because right now the only way I can see it is via a 2nd democratic process...yet you don't want one.

I can't achieve anything on my own. With others we can move mountains.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Also. I'm not averse to a second Referendum.
So long as the question asked is May's Deal or No Deal.
If the question is May's Deal or Remain, that's when we get bleach poured into ballot boxes.

[Prufrock]

Please, god, make it stop.

[Enoch]

Please, god, make it stop.

Who is this god you speak of? You taking His name in vain?

[Montreal Wanderer]

For what it is worth (not much I'm sure) I don't see the referendum as an exercise in democracy. The electorate was asked to vote on an issue, the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand. The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed. Had I a vote (being as ill-informed as everyone else) I would have voted to remain solely on the basis that leave was supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris - all of whose company I do not wish to be found in.

[Enoch]

the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand.

.
... but ... but ... but, Monty, what's that got to do with anything?

No one can know the true consequences of any action in advance. Fact is, more voted out than in, simples!

[Montreal Wanderer]

the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand.

.
... but ... but ... but, Monty, what's that got to do with anything?

No one can know the true consequences of any action in advance. Fact is, more voted out than in, simples!

In exercising my franchise I like to make a rational choice based on valid information. If the information is faulty, or frankly false, my choice cannot be said to be rational. This seems to me a problem with the referendum process no matter how many voted for whichever option. I understand if people feel compelled to stick with the original decision and it is your decision not mine. It is just that my view from the outside is that whatever you thought you were voting for beyond the simple in and out is not what you are going to get. This seems unsatisfactory even if democratic.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm very sympathetic to the argument of "we have to enact what we voted for initially before having a further vote".

And were it the case that we could say 5 years after leaving (GE timeframe) have another guaranteed vote to decide what we do from there - be it stay out, go back in, sever all ties etc...then I would reluctantly say "ok".

The problem is that there is no such guarantee. And re-entry wouldn't even be a guaranteed option open to us even if we overwhelmingly wanted to.

That is why simply leaving and finding out the consequences and hoping we can live with them - on the basis of a vote that was never binding and in which the winning campaign committed illegalities that could have overturned the result of a legally binding vote....is for me just not a credible option. Especially when we consider that currently the only leave option that could pass our parliament is one that less than a 3rd of those who voted from Brexit actually want.

[Enoch]

the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand.

.
... but ... but ... but, Monty, what's that got to do with anything?

No one can know the true consequences of any action in advance. Fact is, more voted out than in, simples!

In exercising my franchise I like to make a rational choice based on valid information. If the information is faulty, or frankly false, my choice cannot be said to be rational. This seems to me a problem with the referendum process no matter how many voted for whichever option. I understand if people feel compelled to stick with the original decision and it is your decision not mine. It is just that my view from the outside is that whatever you thought you were voting for beyond the simple in and out is not what you are going to get. This seems unsatisfactory even if democratic.

.
For my money there seems to be a common misconception that 'folk what voted oot' didn't have a clue what they were voting for. My view is pretty much the opposite.

I think most folk that wanted out knew exactly what they voted for. I also think many folk that voted in are shuffling blindly to a future they will not like.

I appreciate my view doesn't align with the received wisdom in some areas but it's a view I held long before Cameron deigned to call a referendum. No doubt it'll be a view I continue to hold long after this particular fiasco is dusted.

[TANGODANCER]

Is it worth remembering why we wanted out in the first place? Seems to me we were less than happy with the E.U and decided to tell em to keep it? That's the simplistic view, but one we considered enough to have a referendum over. Now suddenly, we can't do that because.....

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's also worth remarking on that the electorate also voted in a general election after the referendum and massively overwhelmingly supported candidates whose manifestos supported the Leave vote that was endorsed in the Referendum.
Nobody stopped 52% of people voting Liberal Democrat, or Green, or SNP.
And don't get me wrong Monty, but along with 16 year olds, and the population of France, I don't believe Canadians had a choice in the matter, informed or not...

[BWFC_Insane]

It's also worth remarking on that the electorate also voted in a general election after the referendum and massively overwhelmingly supported candidates whose manifestos supported the Leave vote that was endorsed in the Referendum.
Nobody stopped 52% of people voting Liberal Democrat, or Green, or SNP.
And don't get me wrong Monty, but along with 16 year olds, and the population of France, I don't believe Canadians had a choice in the matter, informed or not...

With respect, I don't think that argument stacks up. The Labour manifesto cited their determination to "stop a dangerous Tory Brexit". And a desire for a "new customs union". Polling evidence suggests remainers mainly voted for Labour in the hope that at least they could prevent a hard Brexit - as a act of damage limitation.

After all in the last GE 70% of Labour voters were remainers.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

And Spotty replied
For what it is worth (not much I'm sure) I don't see the referendum as an exercise in democracy.

Referenda with a straightforward unbiased question are about as democratic as you can get

The electorate was asked to vote on an issue, the consequences of which they could not then and likely cannot now understand.

That appears to me to be a simple misunderstanding from your perspective, as you clearly misunderstand the issue from a purely economic outside perspective.

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

Had I a vote (being as ill-informed as everyone else) I would have voted to remain solely on the basis that leave was supported by Donald Trump, Nigel Farage and Boris - all of whose company I do not wish to be found in.

I cannot for the life of me understand
why who supports what matters - Trump and Kim Jong-un do not agree on anything in particular. Merkel and Macron do. Do I base my understanding of world politics on their understanding? Should I weigh up whether Modi or Khan is the most obnoxious wazzock?
And by the way, Nigel Farage is hardly the worst villain on Earth, in fact he seems pretty well grounded to me. But then I've never worshipped Thatcher or Corbyn, Tito nor Reagan, Mao nor Adenauer.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

It's also worth remarking on that the electorate also voted in a general election after the referendum and massively overwhelmingly supported candidates whose manifestos supported the Leave vote that was endorsed in the Referendum.
Nobody stopped 52% of people voting Liberal Democrat, or Green, or SNP.
And don't get me wrong Monty, but along with 16 year olds, and the population of France, I don't believe Canadians had a choice in the matter, informed or not...

With respect, I don't think that argument stacks up. The Labour manifesto cited their determination to "stop a dangerous Tory Brexit". And a desire for a "new customs union". Polling evidence suggests remainers mainly voted for Labour in the hope that at least they could prevent a hard Brexit - as a act of damage limitation.

After all in the last GE 70% of Labour voters were remainers.

And yet they voted for a party who promised to accept the result of the Referendum...
The Liberals didn't.
If those 70% had voted Liberal Democrat, I think you'll find that the referendum result would have been overturned by Article 50 not being implemented.

[Montreal Wanderer]

The data they received to help make up their minds were a tissue of lies from both sides, so they had to vote for the most appealing lie. Democracy really requires an informed electorate, and yours has been sadly misinformed.

Go on, which tissue of lies was I fed about the 'ever greater union's of a basically non democratic supra-national organisation that is ruled by gravy train politics?

As you note it is none of my business (though I do hold an EU passport). My comments are based on the news we receive. From both sides there have been many exposés of demonstrably false pre-referendum claims. For example, the Independent wrote:

Some proponents of a second Brexit referendum argue that the first was problematic because of the huge number of demonstrably false claims made during the course of the campaign.
Here are some of the most notorious and patently false claims made by both sides of the debate.

1
‘Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market’ – Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan
This claim, repeated by economically liberal Brexiteers, was demonstrably false – Theresa May has now committed to taking the UK out of the single market, a point explicitly repeated on Friday by Downing Street.

Following the referendum Oliver Norgrove, a former Vote Leave staffer, who supports staying in the single market, urged people to check the official campaign’s website and official literature – noting that the things they had campaigned for were “utterly achievable in the EEA and make no mention at all of leaving the single market”.
2
‘Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350m per week’ – Boris Johnson

The claim by the Leave campaign that the UK would take back control of “roughly £350m a week” was derided by the UK Statistics Authority as “a clear misuse of official statistics”. The problem with the notorious £350m figure is that it is a “gross” figure – it doesn’t take into account the money the UK gets back from the EU. It also doesn’t take into account Britain’s rebate on top of that.
When those are taken into account the figure is £250m, but debate over the money also had a bigger flaw – the effect on the UK’s public finances from depressed economic growth caused by leaving the single market is expected to dwarf any saving made from ending the UK’s subscription to the EU budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that even a 0.1 per cent fall in growth over the next 50 years would see tax receipts £36bn lower.Thus, the impression that leaving the EU would somehow save money or lessen austerity is likely to be a false one.
3
‘We will need an emergency Budget to restore stability to public finances’ – George Osborne

George Osborne’s predicted “emergency Budget” full of tax rises and spending cuts after the Brexit vote never materialised – the Treasury has broadly stuck to Mr Osborne’s economic plans on spending from before the vote. It also has no significant plans to raise taxes or cut spending when Britain actually leaves the EU in March 2019.

It could be argued that Mr Osborne never had the opportunity to implement his emergency Budget, because he was replaced by Philip Hammond. But ignoring the fact that the two chancellors are from the same party and both campaigned for Remain, Mr Osborne did have nearly a month in office after the 2016 referendum, suggesting it wasn’t that much of an emergency.

4
‘The UK loses out because other members favour a highly regulated and protectionist economy’ – Jacob Rees-Mogg

The claim that the UK is constantly being overruled by other EU countries is false. Research by UK in a changing Europe shows that the UK has been in a minority on 57 legislative acts at the European Council since 1999, when the decisions were made public. Since then it has been in the majority on 2,474 acts, and abstained on 70 occasions.

Separate research by VoteWatch shows a shifting pattern in votes between 2004-2009 and 2009-2015, however – with the UK becoming the government most likely to vote against the majority in the second period. But even taking that data into account, the UK is still on the winning side 87 per cent of the time and far from being isolated, has consistent allies like Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Lithuania and Greece that back it on the vast majority of votes.

5
‘Two thirds of British jobs in manufacturing are dependent on demand from Europe’ – Alan Johnson

This claim by the Remain campaign was based on outdated data by the Centre of Economics and Business Research (CEBR). The consultancy has since revised the figures: it says the figure is more likely to be around 17 per cent.

The problem with the original figure was that the Remain campaign compared the total number of manufacturing jobs, 2.55 million, with the 1.7 million jobs the CEBR had said were dependent both directly and indirectly on EU trade, including in other industries. The two figures are not comparable so the two-thirds number was wrong.

6
‘Turkey (population 76 million) is joining the EU’ – Vote Leave publicity

Though Turkey has been an official EU candidate state since 1999, talks have long stalled and there is no prospect of the country joining the bloc anytime soon.

The European Parliament officially voted in favour of suspending negotiations just months after the EU referendum, on the basis of human rights abuses – while the European Council has said it will open talks in no new areas.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has also since said Turkey will never become an EU member, effectively blocking any accession. Turkish President Erdogan’s constitutional referendum has effectively sealed the deal.