If there is a second referendum ...

Tammykitty

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.
.

There is a precedence for putting an arbitrary time limit on referendums already.


The Good Friday Agreement states that a border poll if held, cannot be held for another 7 years?


Why should it be acceptable for a 7 year wait to be the minimum period for people to change their minds and/or demographics to change in NI, but in the rest of the UK, a referendum can be repeated after 3 years?

kabayiri

Another referendum mostly likely means that we take part in the upcoming EU elections.

Exactly what stance do we put forward in these elections? I'm not sure how we can convince the other MEPs we have a credible position.

'Remaining' is sold as a no cost option, but I cannot see how this can be true.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

kabayiri wrote: »

'Remaining' is sold as a no cost option, but I cannot see how this can be true.

It's not being sold as a no cost option, it's just a lower cost option than leaving.

MobileSaver

Tammykitty wrote: »

The Good Friday Agreement ... Why should it be acceptable for a 7 year wait ... but in the rest of the UK, a referendum can be repeated after 3 years?

I don't know enough about the GFA to know whether that 7 year wait was democratically decided or not but on the face of it that doesn't sound acceptable to me.

However it is a moot point as there was no such time limit imposed on the EU referendum...

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It's not being sold as a no cost option, it's just a lower cost option than leaving.

It is absolutely the way someone like James O Brien on LBC presents it.

I didn't hear Vince Cable talk about the "cost of Remaining" yesterday.

System

MobileSaver wrote: »

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.



.

A vote of no confidence is not challenging the legitimacy of the election result.
Labour won a landslide victory over the Conservatives in 1945. But so far as I am aware no Conservative asserted that the vote was unlawful, called for a re-run, or challenged it in the courts.
It was accepted as a democratic and legitimate vote.



No sour grapes.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

Another referendum mostly likely means that we take part in the upcoming EU elections.

Exactly what stance do we put forward in these elections? I'm not sure how we can convince the other MEPs we have a credible position.

I don't think we need to. If we get the EU to extend A50 and we don't do some deal where we lose our MEPs anyway, then we get the seats no matter who we elect. It'd be interesting to see if he'd elect pro/anti-EU MEPs in that case though, and if they'd bother getting involved.

Malthusian

kabayiri wrote: »

Exactly what stance do we put forward in these elections? I'm not sure how we can convince the other MEPs we have a credible position.

"Look, we don't like you, and you don't like us. Glad we got that straightened out, let's claim some expenses."

Seems pretty credible to me.

MobileSaver

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

A vote of no confidence is not challenging the legitimacy of the election result.

Winning the General Election means you get to rule the country for the next five years. A vote of no confidence absolutely challenges whether you get to rule the country for those five years.

BLB53

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

As I said, I am not saying people do not have the right to change their mind. When the decision of the 2016 vote has been delivered and we are out, the people and politicians can quite legitimately start the campaign for us to rejoin.

But I firmly believe... that when we are given a once-in-a-generation referendum, warned repeatedly of the economic dangers of leaving, promised that the result would be implemented, thereafter 500 MPs voted to trigger A50 and just to make sure, we had a subsequent GE where over 80% of MPs were elected on manifestos to respect the decision...we are fully entitled to leave without remainers forcing us to vote again.

We are entering dangerous waters if this continues and a constitutional crisis. Hopefully common sense and a few more grown-ups doing the right thing will prevail.