If there is a second referendum ...

wunferall

BobQ wrote: »

The PMs deal was not just voted down by Remainers it included some Leavers.

A second vote is a way of resolving what the people want even if that is Brexit without a deal.

Any fool can say Brexit means Brexit. What matters is that the Government has a clear steer on what it means, not that the PM claims it means what she thinks it means.

May has created this mess and is now playing with people's lives, their jobs and their futures.

Had the referendum offered the prospect of Brexit into a permanent Customs Union or an EEA solution, I would probably have voted for it.

I think that you (like many others) are reading far too much into events and into what crumbs of information we are being fed in your desperation to deny Brexit.

It has been suggested by many people from right after the referendum that we would see one year, 360-odd days of waffle, bluster, recriminations and coercion followed by the only points of substance being agreed at the eleventh hour.
So far that looks pretty much spot-on.


If dreaming of a second referendum is the only way some can face another day, go for it.
Any port and all that.
You've not got to wait much longer to find out that these dreams were just that; dreams.

gfplux

Would another referendum heal some of the divisions in society that the one in June 2016 appears to have created.

What questions would be asked that would help that process.

Masomnia

Arklight wrote: »

PFI to Virgin and a tranche of appalling American health companies. The Tories voted against the establishment of the NHS and they are determined to dismantle it now. At a profit (for their backers) of course.

The USA has better health outcomes than the UK in most areas.

And anyway, doesn't most of Europe have insurance based healthcare and far more private provision than we do?

Masomnia

We had a referendum in which the majority of voters opted to Leave. Parliament then voted to Leave. We had a general election in which 80%+ of voters chose pro-Leave parties. I can't think of any policy with a stronger mandate in recent times.

phillw

Masomnia wrote: »

We had a referendum in which the majority of voters opted to Leave.

I notice you didn't put the percentage of voters who took part and the slim difference between leave/remain.

Masomnia wrote: »

Parliament then voted to Leave.

According to Rees Mogg it's more sense to have a second referendum after the negotiations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc. You can't have the negotiations without triggering article 50.

Masomnia wrote: »

We had a general election in which 80%+ of voters chose pro-Leave parties.

Neither conservative or Labour are pro-leave parties, both parties are pro-remain which is why they are struggling to leave.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946

Masomnia wrote: »

I can't think of any policy with a stronger mandate in recent times.

Your personal bias is looking for a kill shot, but there isn't one. There isn't a mandate for the consequences of leaving, the leave campaign and nigel farage purposefully left those out.

They should have this caller run the leave campaign https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZCIxLBjk6s

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

Neither conservative or Labour are pro-leave parties, both parties are pro-remain which is why they are struggling to leave.

So the 2017 Labour manifesto pledge to honour the result was a lie?

Masomnia

phillw wrote: »

I notice you didn't put the percentage of voters who took part and the slim difference between leave/remain.

Highest turnout for decades and over a million more votes for leave.

According to Rees Mogg it's more sense to have a second referendum after the negotiations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3rX4nJ0snc. You can't have the negotiations without triggering article 50.

He actually says 'renegotiations' are you sure he's talking about the same thing as us?

Neither conservative or Labour are pro-leave parties, both parties are pro-remain which is why they are struggling to leave.

The manifestos they stood on were quite clear. The main pro-remain parties, Lib Dem and SNP lost vote share.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So the 2017 Labour manifesto pledge to honour the result was a lie?

It would appears so from the evidence. Plus honouring the result doesn't make them pro-remain. Any more than the pilot of a hijacked plane is pro diverting from his original destination.

It's also a lie to say that the general election was a rerun of the referendum. Voting in general elections is way more complicated. I was a conservative voter my entire life and I voted to remain, I switched to Labour for tactical reasons. My belief is that a lot of other people did the same thing.

I don't understand how you can be against a second referendum, but for attributing the result of the general election as a defacto second referendum.

I can do it too. Theresa May losing her majority so that she has to rely on the DUP to form a government is a pretty strong mandate against the conservative position of going forward with leaving. That seems far more compelling to me, especially as I said that it was the message I was trying to give when I voted for Labour.

Labours position is a little vague I'll give you, but Jeremy Corbyn claims to have voted to remain, wants to be in a customs union with the EU & doesn't want to leave without a deal.

To me Labours was suggesting brexit in name only, as they want to put jobs and the economy first. So they would accept free movement of people and paying money to the EU if it benefited the jobs and economy.

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
"We will scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union – which are essential for maintaining industries, jobs and businesses in Britain. Labour will always put jobs and the economy first. "

Which is decidedly not Pro-Leave, which puts jobs and the economy at a lower priority than leaving. It certainly doesn't honour the result as would be understood by a brexiteer.

Masomnia wrote: »

Highest turnout for decades and over a million more votes for leave.

Again you don't feel like posting the percentages, because they tell a different story than the country giving a mandate for something so damaging as leaving the EU.

Leave 51.89%
Remain 48.11%
Spoilt 0.08%

Turnout 72.21%

It's pretty clear that the voters were basically half and half divided over the issue and so it's going to be impossible to make both sides happy and so both sides will likely be upset to an extent. MPs will therefore have to use their own judgement on which half to upset the most, they will use their future predictions on how happy people will be.

I think we should have mandatory voting and votes should be allowed to take more than one day. There is a quarter of the electorate who either forgot, were ill or didn't feel like they were informed enough to make a decision. What is their will? Do you think it will be helpful to go WTO rules and say "you snooze you lose".

As there is a majority of pro-remain in parliament, then that judgement will favour ties with the EU. They will assume that in ten years time if brexit is a failure then there will be a lot of shy brexiteers who won't want to own what they did and will just blame the red bus. Your only way to prevent that would be to demand another referendum. Nigel Farage was also in favour of another referendum if the result was a slim majority for remain, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017 it would seem logical that he would accept one if there was a slim majority for leave.

"In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

It doesn't seem that Nigel Farage thinks a 52-48 result is a mandate for leaving. It seems we have unfinished business. I don't think Theresa Mays government is able to square the circle and finish it.

The backstop kicks the can down the road & probably means we never leave as you can't honour the good friday agreement whilst taking back control, removing it is looking to be impossible as the EU wants to honour the good friday agreement and justifiably doesn't trust us to do so without some form of pressure. Leaving without a deal is looking to be impossible, I don't think (and crucially parliament doesn't think) that there was a mandate for a damaging brexit above all else.

Masomnia wrote: »

He actually says 'renegotiations' are you sure he's talking about the same thing as us?

What are you picking on? You think he means that the second referendum should happen at the end of the withdrawal agreement period? That still makes my point valid as you can't get to that point without triggering article 50. So you can't draw any conclusions about whether the MPs that triggered article 50 actually wanted to leave the EU, maybe they were voting to get to the point where rees mogg says it's a good idea to have a second referendum.

Masomnia wrote: »

The manifestos they stood on were quite clear. The main pro-remain parties, Lib Dem and SNP lost vote share.

Their manifesto was pro second referendum, you seem to be confused about the difference. Lib dems are un-electable, it would have been a wasted vote. In my seat the lib dem candidate was telling labour voters to vote for him as Labour couldn't win, some people fell for it but most didn't. If you add the libdem and labour voters together they would have ousted the conservatives. The way we vote in general elections is not 100% accurate to determine what people think on individual issues. However there is a clear trend that people were willing to vote tactically against Theresa May and her sour faced band of brexiteers.

BikingBud

BobQ wrote: »

Had the referendum offered the prospect of Brexit into a permanent Customs Union or an EEA solution, I would probably have voted for it.

So not Brexit then:eek:

BobQ

BikingBud wrote: »

So not Brexit then:eek:

In your opinion.

The situation we are in is frankly very serious. The EU position was very clear after that. The four freedoms were indivisible and the EU27 were united. Our so called negotiators just muddled on, not believom them and not agreeing even in the cabinet. Leadership was sadly lacking in the political class (outside Scotland that is)


If in 2016 we had had a Government that has come to its own consensus as to what type of Brexit they wanted to negotiate, a solution that had majority support in Parliament they might have realistically had a chance. Instead they fought each other and put party ahead of the national interest, but still did not have a viable solution.

I would much prefer we withdraw Article 50 and start again once a majority has agreed what we really want.

The EU is bemused by a country that asked for a backstop and reached an agreement based on it but which did not have popular support in its own Parliament.