Referendum: which way are you voting?

johnpr98

The 2nd referendum was rejected today but.......A nice little roundup to this thread regarding a possible 2nd referendum by Lord Lisvane who was there when the UK joined the Common Market in 1972, He was the former and highly respected Clerk of the House of Commons until he retired last year. Please read and listen before commenting on his fair and balanced analysis made before the rejection but I think his view still holds up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-may-need-second-referendum-and-parliamentary-approval-says-lord-lisvane-former-commons-clerk_uk_5780b842e4b074297db31287
Full BBC interview from Week in Westminster here at 7 minutes http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jqm79

donnac2558

Interesting one about the US deal worth ££££££ which was suddenly cancelled last week. Of course they are saying its because the man leading it has suddenly decided to move to another company. Of course we believe you:D:D Nothing to do with Brexit at all;);)

RikM

Remain

johnpr98 wrote: »

The 2nd referendum was rejected today but.......A nice little roundup to this thread regarding a possible 2nd referendum by Lord Lisvane who was there when the UK joined the Common Market in 1972, He was the former and highly respected Clerk of the House of Commons until he retired last year. Please read and listen before commenting on his fair and balanced analysis made before the rejection but I think his view still holds up.
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/brexit-may-need-second-referendum-and-parliamentary-approval-says-lord-lisvane-former-commons-clerk_uk_5780b842e4b074297db31287
Full BBC interview from Week in Westminster here at 7 minutes http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07jqm79

Well, the government rejected it (of course), there's still the question of a debate in the house which is not determined yet.
I think a second referendum is unlikely, and frankly not necessary, when parliament can reject the results of the original one...

johnpr98

RikM wrote: »

Well, the government rejected it (of course), there's still the question of a debate in the house which is not determined yet.
I think a second referendum is unlikely, and frankly not necessary, when parliament can reject the results of the original one...

At least the Leave campaigner who started the 2nd ref campaign knows the outcome of his petition now lol

Did you read or listen to Lord Lisvane's interview? (Just checking) :beer:

Old_Git

According to some reports Norway pays the EU a similar amount per head as the UK but has no input in the decision making .
If the UK followed the Norway example we could be paying almost as much as we are now for little return. All the grants will be gone but we could be paying out as much.

x12yhp

Old_Git wrote: »

According to some reports Norway pays the EU a similar amount per head as the UK but has no input in the decision making .
If the UK followed the Norway example we could be paying almost as much as we are now for little return. All the grants will be gone but we could be paying out as much.

Sadly this was something well known and pushed away or flat ignored.

FYI several key chemical suppliers have a flat rise in prices due in September. It will be 7-12 percent. Those chemicals are key in things ranging from hair dressing to car washing. At consumer level it will take some time but, even without the actual changes in trading terms, the weak pound (which was an inevitability in this scenario) WILL mean that prices are going to inflate. The bigger picture is that there is no reason to expect wage inflation, possibly the opposite, so your average Joe has voted for a decrease in their standard of living, at least for a few years.

guiriman

Leave

The whole proposition of a second referendum seemed more undemocratic than anything else in this whole debate. I can understand the principle of requiring a 75% turnout but in effect you say, if 25.1% of you don't want to change the status quo then don't vote. If we took that approach to everything our laws today would be the same as they were 50 years ago, nothing would ever change (for better but also for worse admittedly)

qwert_yuiop

x12yhp wrote: »

Sadly this was something well known and pushed away or flat ignored.

FYI several key chemical suppliers have a flat rise in prices due in September. It will be 7-12 percent. Those chemicals are key in things ranging from hair dressing to car washing. At consumer level it will take some time but, even without the actual changes in trading terms, the weak pound (which was an inevitability in this scenario) WILL mean that prices are going to inflate. The bigger picture is that there is no reason to expect wage inflation, possibly the opposite, so your average Joe has voted for a decrease in their standard of living, at least for a few years.

Meanwhile the southerners are in newry again buying all they can. Exports are now cheaper as expected.
The truth is no one knows how all this will pan out.
It's a minor relief that it's Theresa and not Andrea.

RikM

Remain

guiriman wrote: »

The whole proposition of a second referendum seemed more undemocratic than anything else in this whole debate. I can understand the principle of requiring a 75% turnout but in effect you say, if 25.1% of you don't want to change the status quo then don't vote. If we took that approach to everything our laws today would be the same as they were 50 years ago, nothing would ever change (for better but also for worse admittedly)

Yes the whole *first* referendum was undemocratic in the sense we usually use. We elect representatives, in this country...

qwert_yuiop

Old_Git wrote: »

According to some reports Norway pays the EU a similar amount per head as the UK but has no input in the decision making .
If the UK followed the Norway example we could be paying almost as much as we are now for little return. All the grants will be gone but we could be paying out as much.

So there's one thing that's not going to happen anyway. Norway, population 4 million, by the way. Looks big on the map, doesn't it?