If there is a second referendum ...

BLB53

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

Of course the country can have a change of mind but this is no GE but a once in a generation vote. To call for another vote just two years later, only by remainers btw, before the result has been delivered is profoundly undemocratic and will solve nothing, nay cause even more division and possibly civil unrest.

Democracy is precious and should be treated with utmost respect. Those calling for ref 2 are playing with fire and I suspect do not understand or appreciate the dangers they may unleash.

walesrob

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.

So

referendum 1 = yes on Date 1,

referendum 2 = no on Date 2,

referendum 3 = yes, on Date 3.



Which one is the correct one? Which one is acted upon? Do we keep having referendums instead for many years? Will anything ever get done?


Pray tell, you seem to know what version of democracy Leavers want, but what version of democracy would Remainers like?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

BLB53 wrote: »

Democracy is precious and should be treated with utmost respect. Those calling for ref 2 are playing with fire and I suspect do not understand or appreciate the dangers they may unleash.

So when the Conservatives, including leading Brexiteers such as Liam Fox, Bill Cash, John Redwood, tried to overturn the results of the Welsh Devolution referendum by voting against the creation of the Welsh assembly, and then tried to get a second referendum through to overturn the result just a few years later on their 2005 manifesto, that was democratic.... But now it's not?

Or what about when Birmingham had a referendum for the creation of a Mayor, voted against it, and then had one forced on them by the Tories anyway?

Democracy is precious - but the outcomes are not written in stone.

There have been two dozen or so instances of MP's trying to overturn the results of the last General Election via a vote of no confidence in the House of Commons since 1945. The people voted for a govt, the opposition tried to overturn that vote and ask the people to vote again. Is this not 'democracy'?

Like I said - a democracy that isn't allowed to change it's mind ceases to be a democracy.

MobileSaver

walesrob wrote: »

So referendum 1 = yes on Date 1, referendum 2 = no on Date 2, referendum 3 = yes, on Date 3. Which one is the correct one?

Er, they were all the correct one on their respective dates, is that really so hard to understand?

Labour won the GE in 2005, Conservatives won it in 2010, they were both the "correct one" at that time or are you somehow saying one was "wrong" and "undemocratic?!?!"

Herzlos

walesrob wrote: »

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'm happy with a new referendum any time something materially changes, and the public mood appears to have changed.



For example: Brexit not resulting in £350m/week going to the NHS, or Remain but having to join the Euro.


The whole point of democracy is that the country can change it's mind when the situation changes, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim the situation hasn't changed since June 2016.


Would Leavers support another referendum if it was the only way to get their hard Brexit?


Would Farage have pushed for another referendum if Remain won 52:48? (hint, he's on video saying yes, he would).

walesrob

MobileSaver wrote: »

Er, they were all the correct one on their respective dates, is that really so hard to understand?

Labour won the GE in 2005, Conservatives won it in 2010, they were both the "correct one" at that time or are you somehow saying one was "wrong" and "undemocratic?!?!"

I was referring to referendums, not general election results. The title of this thread is 'If there was a second referendum...';)

walesrob

Herzlos wrote: »

The whole point of democracy is that the country can change it's mind when the situation changes, and you'd have to be willfully ignorant to claim the situation hasn't changed since June 2016.

But what would be the parameters? If the populace kept changing their mind everytime there's an apparent shift in the situation, which referendum would be acted upon?

Herzlos wrote: »

Would Farage have pushed for another referendum if Remain won 52:48? (hint, he's on video saying yes, he would).

Hopefully he (and his band of moaning Leavers) will be told quite rightly to 'jog on, buster'.

PokerPlayer111

Herzlos wrote: »

I'm happy with a new referendum any time something materially changes, and the public mood appears to have changed.

How would we know what the public opinion is, which source do you trust?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

PokerPlayer111 wrote: »

How would we know what the public opinion is, which source do you trust?

Good point, we should ask them to vote just to make sure.;)

Moby

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.



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

May seems to have withdrawn the text from her speech today.....knowing she'd be charged with rank hypocrisy:-


Guardian
May retracted her false claim that the result of the referendum on Welsh devolution was accepted by both main parties. (See 10.25am.) In extracts from the speech released overnight she said:

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by both sides and the popular legitimacy of that institution has never seriously been questioned.

After it was pointed out that the Conservative party did contest the result of the 1997 referendum, she instead said this morning:

When the people of Wales voted by a margin of 0.3%, on a turnout of just over 50%, to endorse the creation of the Welsh assembly, that result was accepted by parliament.........


In other words the fact that she voted against accepting the result of the referendum on the Assembly in parliament was smoothed over by saying that Parliament accepted the result!