If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

IMO because we had that vote, and to sneak remain into the options does overturn the will of the majority who voted leave.

I just can't follow this logic. An additional ballot option can't impact democracy; either the will of the people doesn't want it and it gets ignored, or the will of the people does actually want it and it gets votes. Both are democratic and would show the current will of the people which is all that actually matters.

prowla

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

A referendum, in this country, is not a mandate. It is an expression of opinion.
The government and parliament are under no obligation to implement it. That ought to be abundantly clear from the "mandate" secured by the first referendum.

It is a mandate when the government put it into their manifesto and promised to honour the result.

Thrugelmir

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

But this approach has never been tested

The 4 Freedoms are clearly laid out in the Treaty of Rome. Nothing to test. Corbyn's silence to date says it all. He daren't speak as would undermine his power grab. That's all he is interested in.

BLB53

One thing about May is that she has been resolute all along that trying to reverse the vote is something very bad for democracy, and to be resisted at all costs

...until it does not suit her then she suddenly changes course. I would not be a bit surprised to see her agree to ref2 when her deal is finally voted on and defeated. Hammond and other remainers would resign before they allowed things to get to leave on no deal. I no longer trust PM on anything she says.

BLB53

I just can't follow this logic. An additional ballot option can't impact democracy; either the will of the people doesn't want it and it gets ignored, or the will of the people does actually want it and it gets votes. Both are democratic and would show the current will of the people which is all that actually matters.

Whichever way remainers want to slice and dice their proposal, to have a second ref before the first one has been implemented is just plain wrong. If MPs give the people a referendum and promise to implement the result it must be honoured. The question was clear - remain or leave and the answer was clear...leave. Just get on and leave and then the remainers can start a campaign to rejoin.

BikingBud

lisyloo wrote: »

Why shouldn't we have the option to remain now we know what the options are? Some might want to change their mind now it's clearer.
A practical difficulty is that the options above split the leave vote, so ou can't have 3 leave options pluse 1 remain option.

Because we still do not know the impact of any of the choices. A simple often asked question: Darling shall we have children?

You either do or do not. You cannot be partially pregnant or partially parent children.

They may both have benefits depending upon your outlook and opting to have children undoubtedly changes you life significantly. Yes it consumes a large amount of you capital but it also brings about so many incalculable benefits not least the joy and parental pride when you see what they have achieved under you guidance and mentoring.

In terms of Brexit we should grasp the challenge and produce.

We should aim to make the UK a proud and positive nation that produces goods that can compete on the world markets and become net exporters of quality products that other nations demand.

We often have the intellectual ability for great technological advances but are undermined by naysayers and lack of investment, just look at what we do with University students. We should aim to turn this around, Brexit provides that challenge and we should take it on. Not shy away in the corner because it might cost a little cash.

We have had many years of blowing taxpayers money on causes that have had arguable benefits to the Nation, two wars in Iraq and one in Afghanistan as well as bailing the banks out. Why not invest some cash now with a clear focus on developing National interests?

OldMusicGuy

Herzlos wrote: »

I just can't follow this logic. An additional ballot option can't impact democracy; either the will of the people doesn't want it and it gets ignored, or the will of the people does actually want it and it gets votes. Both are democratic and would show the current will of the people which is all that actually matters.

As a remainer, I feel I have to agree with most of the following comment:

BLB53 wrote: »

Whichever way remainers want to slice and dice their proposal, to have a second ref before the first one has been implemented is just plain wrong. If MPs give the people a referendum and promise to implement the result it must be honoured. The question was clear - remain or leave and the answer was clear...leave. Just get on and leave and then the remainers can start a campaign to rejoin.

The first referendum was clear about leaving. Parliament now cannot agree on how to leave, so I can't see the problem with a referendum that now asks "how should we leave".

As a remainer I'd be happy if there was an option in a second referendum to stay but I do think that would be a betrayal of the first referendum. I can see it happening though.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Corbyn's silence to date says it all. He daren't speak as would undermine his power grab. That's all he is interested in.

Well I can't disagree with that. I find that sad but it's politics I guess.

BikingBud

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

Now you will note I keep saying what Labour "appears" to want. I read their strategy last night so that's what I got from that. But they have never clearly articulated it and none of the commentators really push them on it. Labour is happily fudging all of this and saying they can get a wonderful deal that will be the same as what we have now without that claim ever being tested. They just seem to want the Tories to fall apart so they can get power rather than really focusing on Brexit. Maybe I'm being harsh as I'm not a Labour supporter.

I see no policy or desire from Labour other than undermining the Government and forcing a General Election. One has to ask for whose benefit?

However, this is not about party politics more what the Nation required and what Parliament should deliver.

giocoforzauno

OldMusicGuy wrote: »

The referendum delivered a non-constitutionally binding direction to Parliament to "leave the EU". There was no clear definition of what leave meant.

We now appear to have three "leave" options emerging:

1 Brexiteers: immediate "hard" exit on March 29th implementing WTO rules with trade agreements to be negotiated with the EU and other countries from day 1.

2 May deal: phased "hard" exit involving 2 year transition period with EU in which we negotiate a free trade deal with them (subject to backstop and paying EU 39 billion). After the transition we can sign trade deals with other countries (nothing to stop us starting the negotiations after March 29 I assume).

3 Labour: appears to be a softer Brexit. Appears they want closer to a Norway style arrangement with close alignment to the EU in some areas and staying in the customs union. They still say this is "leaving".

As parliament cannot agree on how to Brexit, surely they need to go back to the people and get another mandate. But this time the mandate should be on the type of Brexit, not leave/remain. Thus a referendum offering the different types of Brexit but no remain option would be the way to go. Would that not allow a more informed debate on the pros and cons of different types of Brexit?

I voted remain btw but am prepared to accept that staying in on today's terms is no longer a democratically viable option, even though I would still prefer to remain.

In the last referendum campain politicians prepared voters for the Hard Brexit possibility (no deal with Europe)?

If yes, in my opinion UK must leave UE, also without a deal. This is the democracy.

If no, ever in my opinion there must be a second referendum. Because people were not be completely informed .

THE_Terry_Urr

giocoforzauno wrote: »

In the last referendum campain politicians prepared voters for the Hard Brexit possibility (no deal with Europe)?

If yes, in my opinion UK must leave UE, also without a deal. This is the democracy.

If no, ever in my opinion there must be a second referendum. Because people were not be completely informed .

People have always had the opportunity to be informed of exactly what the EU is especially in recent years.The EU has websites telling you. But they've seen what pretty much amounts to a stealthy power grab from them combined with lots of unnecessary interference in the way of daft regulations and increased bureaucracy for example.
Trying to argue that the British public were not informed is nothing more than whinging from those disagreeing with the result & it's been convincingly argued that conversely those who chose remain were no better informed because future EU plans were not or are not known. Nobody for example said that the Common Market would evolve into the current EU in the 70's when the UK joined.

Democracy is doing what voters asked, not asking them to vote again because you didn't like the answer or hope that things have changed before the original vote is actioned. It was made perfectly clear that the referendum would be honoured so this is what should happen.