If there is a second referendum ...

MobileSaver

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

The thought of having another referendum ... "Vote/vote/vote again until they get the vote they personally want - and blow democracy".

• Democracy (noun): a system of government where the citizens exercise power by voting.

Please could you explain how a referendum on the EU in 2016 was democracy but another referendum in 2019 would somehow not be democracy?

BLB53

Please could you explain how a referendum on the EU in 2016 was democracy but another referendum in 2019 would somehow not be democracy?

Because the result of the 2016 one has not yet been delivered. When we have left the EU then there can be a legitimate campaign to rejoin but the result of the first one MUST be respected.

MobileSaver

BLB53 wrote: »

Because the result of the 2016 one has not yet been delivered. When we have left the EU then there can be a legitimate campaign to rejoin but the result of the first one MUST be respected.

No, that's just what you, moneyistooshorttomention and all the other rabid "Brexit whatever the cost" supporters want because you know the result would be very different if the question was asked again.

A referendum is the very pinnacle of democracy and so it is actually you and moneyistooshorttomention who are trying to thwart the democratic process by denouncing a 2019 referendum.

DaftyDuck

Ah, I see that at least 48 Conservative MPs have changed their minds over their choice of leader in the course of the last two years, and that has triggered a poll of the whole leadership electorate... even though she has pretty much stuck to doing what she said she would, from the outset..... The Conservative MPs now have a choice to express their current opinion, based on the current situation.

Of course, the electorate isn't allowed to demonstrate if it has changed its mind ..... no, that is completely unnecessary, the people have (apparently) decided, and that's that!

Brexit means Brexit.... Glad that's clear!

LHW99

No, that's just what you, moneyistooshorttomention and all the other rabid "Brexit whatever the cost" supporters want because you know the result would be very different if the question was asked again.

Ah, I see that at least 48 Conservative MPs have changed their minds over their choice of leader in the course of the last two years, and that has triggered a poll of the whole leadership electorate... even though she has pretty much stuck to doing what she said she would, from the outset..... The Conservative MPs now have a choice to express their current opinion, based on the current situation.

Of course, the electorate isn't allowed to demonstrate if it has changed its mind ..... no, that is completely unnecessary, the people have (apparently) decided, and that's that!

And the result of both those original votes was delivered, and now there is a revisiting of the decision.
As BLB53 has said, once the result of the 2016 vote is delivered, revisit it if that is decided to be appropriate.

andrewf75

BLB53 wrote: »

Because the result of the 2016 one has not yet been delivered. When we have left the EU then there can be a legitimate campaign to rejoin but the result of the first one MUST be respected.

I agree with this. It isn’t right to hold another vote before the result of the first is enacted. The only reason for a second vote is if there is no other way forward, i.e. if no-one can get anything passed before exit day, in which case it wouldn’t be just a re-run but to clarify whether we still want Brexit now that we know that it is something more specific than the wide range of options previously proposed.

Herzlos

I don't think there's any requirement in democracy to let a decision to be enacted before it is undone.
It's madness to think that the correct way to do something people likely don't want is to do it and let them vote to undo it. It only makes sense if people turn around and say "we're out now, may as well stay out".

Brexit is materially different from what was proposed, and leaving then re-joining will leave us much worse off than just staying, if that's what the people want.

kingstreet

tetley wrote: »

wow, I am neither uneducated nor gullible.
This is typical of a remainer, they think that just because somebody doesnt agree with their way of thinking, then the other person is wrong at best, and uneducated at worst.



What a complete t%$t you are.


Go and have this conversation with Jacob ress-moog and see who comes out on top then.

Crashy ain't a remainer.

And he was correcting someone else's spelling of "gullable", if you read back the quote.

phillw

BLB53 wrote: »

Because the result of the 2016 one has not yet been delivered. When we have left the EU then there can be a legitimate campaign to rejoin but the result of the first one MUST be respected.

You're only saying that because you want to frustrate democracy. There is no logical reason why that has to be the case.

If we hold a referendum now then we can choose between remaining on the same terms, or financial disaster.

If we wait until we've left, then we only get the choice of two different financial disasters. Only the racists and elite will be happy with that.

There is no way the EU will let us re-join on the same preferential terms that we currently enjoy.

Leaving is just a way of inflating the wealth of a few rich people.

BLB53

A referendum is the very pinnacle of democracy and so it is actually you and moneyistooshorttomention who are trying to thwart the democratic process by denouncing a 2019 referendum.

Look, we were told time and time again by MPs on both sides before the referendum that there would be no going back and this was a 'once in a generation' decision.

Delivering Brexit is a political and constitutional duty. If MPs fail to do this, it says a lot more about their shortcomings than it does about the 2016 vote. If they are unwilling or unable to deliver then we need to replace them with others who can deliver.

For MPs - most of whom would really prefer to remain but won't admit it - and who mostly voted to give us a referendum in 2015 and reaffirmed their policy to leave in the 2017 GE, to now avoid their duty and pass the buck suggests to me they are unfit for the positions they hold.

MPs need to seriously take a long hard look in the mirror and take stock of their actions before this gets really really bad.