If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

Given that May is threatening a no brexit outcome:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46856149?SThisFB
Leavers must be warming to that 2nd referendum? Sounds like the only way for the public to get Parliament to go for the hard brexit they want?

Theophile

BobQ wrote: »

Banks and other financial companies have shifted at least £800 billion ($1 trillion) worth of assets out of the country and into the European Union because of Brexit, EY said in a report published Monday.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/01/07/investing/brexit-banks-moving-assets/index.html

Project Fear 2.0!

MobileSaver

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Referendum should not be able to be reheld for a minimum period of time.

The only people who would want such a thing are those that do not believe in democracy. The world changes, more information becomes available, lies are exposed and so people change their views; you cannot then put an arbitrary time limit on when the people are allowed to exercise their democratic vote.

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

Or to put it another way, it's remainers like you who didn't want a referendum at all

Um, no, I believe in democracy and am thankful we live in a democratic society so am very happy to have a referendum.

Moe_The_Bartender wrote: »

It's fundamentally hypocritical to say in one breath that a referendum is the very definition of democracy but only if you get the right result.

The only people saying that are the Leavers because they're scared the next result will be different now that so many Leave lies have been exposed.

Carl31

MobileSaver wrote: »

The only people who would want such a thing are those that do not believe in democracy. The world changes, more information becomes available, lies are exposed and so people change their views; you cannot then put an arbitrary time limit on when the people are allowed to exercise their democratic vote.

would you be saying the same thing if the vote was the other way round? if we had remained, would you be saying we need another say in 2 years time as people may have changed their minds, demographics have changed etc...? Also, if thats the case, why have we not had referendums every 2 years since the 1970s?

I think most people dont really want to spend their lives voting for seemingly pointless outcomes

System

MobileSaver wrote: »

Um, no, I believe in democracy and am thankful we live in a democratic society so am very happy to have a referendum.


.

Up to now people of all political shades have accepted the results of a general election as valid, even if they dislike the result. But it now appears that no referendum result is conclusive, because the losers immediately begin campaigning to overturn it, and to have another referendum.


By supporting a second referendum you are undermining the democratic validity of referendums in general.


Wait until there is one whose outcome you support, and then see how much you resent its opponents trying to reverse your democratic wishes - it can work both ways!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Up to now people of all political shades have accepted the results of a general election as valid, even if they dislike the result. But it now appears that no referendum result is conclusive, because the losers immediately begin campaigning to overturn it, and to have another referendum.

That's always been the case though.

Theresa May for example, when she was an MP (and along with many other Tories concerned about the small margin of victory in the Welsh devolution referendum), voted against the bill authorising the Welsh assembly and devolution in the late 90's.

They then called for a second referendum on Welsh devolution as part of the 2005 Tory manifesto.

So Conservatives have a proud history of calling for the people to decide again in a second referendum when the outcome was so close.

By supporting a second referendum you are undermining the democratic validity of referendums in general.

A democracy that isn't allowed to change it's mind ceases to be a democracy.

walesrob

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

A democracy that isn't allowed to change it's mind ceases to be a democracy.

That's just vague.



So how many times does a referendum have to be done to be shown that it is true democracy? 1? 2? 3? Every month? Every year? The cynical side of me says until the correct result is achieved a.k.a. democracy as it suits some people, not others. But then it becomes not a democracy, but a stitch up.

MobileSaver

Carl31 wrote: »

would you be saying the same thing if the vote was the other way round? if we had remained, would you be saying we need another say in 2 years time as people may have changed their minds,

If there was enough interest by enough people then absolutely yes. So, for example, if we voted Remain and the EU then turned around and said we had to join the Euro and a new EU Army I'd be first in the queue supporting another referendum.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Up to now people of all political shades have accepted the results of a general election as valid, even if they dislike the result.

That's a demonstrably false assertion; since 1945 there have been 23 votes of no confidence in the government, that's 23 instances of the results of the general election being challenged.

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

the losers immediately begin campaigning to overturn it,

The last referendum was two and a half years ago!

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

By supporting a second referendum you are undermining the democratic validity of referendums in general.

Utter tosh. Please buy yourself a dictionary and look up the definitions of "democracy" and "referendum." Please then explain how asking the people to exercise their right to vote undermines the democratic validity of anything.

It's as clear as day that the very people claiming a second referendum is undemocratic are obviously the very ones who are terrified of real democracy.

Moby

walesrob wrote: »

That's just vague.



So how many times does a referendum have to be done to be shown that it is true democracy? 1? 2? 3? Every month? Every year? The cynical side of me says until the correct result is achieved a.k.a. democracy as it suits some people, not others. But then it becomes not a democracy, but a stitch up.

I suppose it depends on factors in each indidividual case. May has had 2 years to implement a brexit and I think we can agree she is struggling to do so. There is also no majority for brexit without a deal either in parliament or in the country. In those circumstances to just say we have to implement the decision of the referendum is meaningless because it doesn't answer the question 'How that objective is to be achieved'? Just because you or I may have a 'view' on that does not change the situation the country is in.

MobileSaver

walesrob wrote: »

The cynical side of me says until the correct result is achieved a.k.a. democracy as it suits some people,

The "correct result" is what the majority of people want at any given time not what "suits some people" even though that's what the Leavers would like democracy to be.