If there is a second referendum ...

ukcarper

Zero_Gravitas wrote: »

Which is something leavers might have wanted to think about before they embarked on this national act of self-harm.

Well I suppose they were not concerned about our position within EU as they thought we would be out. The people who should of thought about it are the 544 MPs who voted for referendum.

BobQ

I have not bothered posting much on Brexit recently. The arguments are so repetitive.

I personally cannot see a further referendum being held. A narrow vote to remain would not be accepted and one to leave still does not address the fundamental issue Parliament is struggling to resolve. Namely what did Leave mean to those that voted for it.

The whole nation is now being taken down a road determined by Tory party politics. As Rudd said today, now is the time for a cross party consensus on what next. She may be floating the idea that May dare not state herself, but I doubt that May is capable of working cross party, she cannot manage the issues within her own party as we see.

However, I do think a second referendum could help if done correctly

A prerequisite for an effective referendum would be that the options put to the referendum are within UK control. Teresa May has negotiated a deal which the EU27 will agree. Others say we should leave with No Deal.

So I would then have a two questions:

1 Knowing what you know now do you believe that the UK should still leave the EU of remain in it? Answer Leave/Remain

2 If the outcome of 1 confirms that we will Leave the EU, what type of Brexit would you prefer?

(a) The deal negotiated by Teresa May
or
(b) Leave with out a deal

The above would mean we would have a definitive view on Leave /Remain in 2019 and a clear decision on the type of Brexit if we still wish to leave.

I cannot see the EU27 objecting to a pause in Brexit to hold such a referendum.

There may be alternatives but the options in a referendum must be things to can enact and things we understand the implications of voting for.

BLB53

However, I do think a second referendum could help if done correctly

What would also help if done correctly is leaving the EU per the instructions of 2016.

sevenhills

ukcarper wrote: »

Well I suppose they were not concerned about our position within EU as they thought we would be out. The people who should of thought about it are the 544 MPs who voted for referendum.

There is no problem with referendums as such, its just that the wrong answer was delivered


In Denmark, after a law has been passed by parliament, one third of the members can demand a referendum. This does not apply to money bills or expropriation. A law that transfers sovereignty to an international organisation must be subjected to a referendum unless five sixth of the MPs vote for it. In both cases, to defeat the law the no votes must not only outnumber the yes votes, they must also number at least 30% of the electorate. Since all referendums have had much more than 60% turnout, no bill has yet passed due to lack of interest.
In practice, referendums have been held every time new treaties of the European Union have been approved, even when more than five sixths can be found. Recently, the Danish government was highly criticized when it did not hold a referendum regarding the controversial Lisbon treaty.
The Constitution of Denmark can be changed only after a referendum. To pass, the yes votes must not only outnumber the no votes, they must also number at least 40% of the electorate.
The present location of the border with Germany was determined by a referendum in 1920 after the German capitulation.

ukcarper

ukcarper wrote: »

Well I suppose they were not concerned about our position within EU as they thought we would be out. The people who should of thought about it are the 544 MPs who voted for referendum.

sevenhills wrote: »

There is no problem with referendums as such, its just that the wrong answer was delivered


In Denmark, after a law has been passed by parliament, one third of the members can demand a referendum. This does not apply to money bills or expropriation. A law that transfers sovereignty to an international organisation must be subjected to a referendum unless five sixth of the MPs vote for it. In both cases, to defeat the law the no votes must not only outnumber the yes votes, they must also number at least 30% of the electorate. Since all referendums have had much more than 60% turnout, no bill has yet passed due to lack of interest.
In practice, referendums have been held every time new treaties of the European Union have been approved, even when more than five sixths can be found. Recently, the Danish government was highly criticized when it did not hold a referendum regarding the controversial Lisbon treaty.
The Constitution of Denmark can be changed only after a referendum. To pass, the yes votes must not only outnumber the no votes, they must also number at least 40% of the electorate.
The present location of the border with Germany was determined by a referendum in 1920 after the German capitulation.

The problem as I see it is that if you are prepared to vote to hold a referendum you have to accept the result no matter how unpalatable you find it.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

But as our position would be weakened and many EU states do not want us to have them how long will be able to hold on to them.

I dislike this half way house - luke warm EU relationship.

For the EU to succeed I actually agree with the likes of Verhofstadt, in that it needs to grab more power to the centre.

Any new referendum should have 2 clear options :-

a) fully IN
b) fully OUT

Fully IN means Euro and Shengen and a commitment to the project. We might as well split the individual countries too, and let Wales and Scotland etc report directly to Brussels.

BobQ

BLB53 wrote: »

What would also help if done correctly is leaving the EU per the instructions of 2016.

Agreed. The problem is that the 2016 instruction was rather like a man getting to a taxi and saying "take me to the station" did be mean train station, bus station, police station? Unfortunately our driver never asked which one we meant. No wonder so many of us are disappointed.:)

ukcarper

BobQ wrote: »

Agreed. The problem is that the 2016 instruction was rather like a man getting to a taxi and saying "take me to the station" did be mean train station, bus station, police station? Unfortunately our driver never asked which one we meant. No wonder so many of us are disappointed.:)

I think to a certain extent that is an excuse put forward by some remainers who don't want to accept the results, you don't here leave voters claiming that.

BobQ

ukcarper wrote: »

I think to a certain extent that is an excuse put forward by some remainers who don't want to accept the results, you don't here leave voters claiming that.

But the situation was different. REMAIN meant keep the status quo.

LEAVE meant LEAVE but those supporting it have never agreed what this future meant. Most of the ERG equate leave to a no-deal situation. Many others who voted leave say some form of bespoke FTA is needed (ie goods and services), others talk of Canada+ (ie goods only) specifically and others say EFTA. All mean LEAVE. They do not need to worry about the result, but they are are still disputing what LEAVE meant.

The EU call us nebulous for a reason. We do not know what we want. For not resolving that issue early on, May should be criticized. For focusing on papering over the cracks in her own party and doing deals with the DUP and not considering a consensus position she should be ashamed of herself.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

But the situation was different. REMAIN meant keep the status quo.
...

Presumably you would have said the same if the referendum vote had been held in 1990.

The idea that the EU has finished changing is not supported by the recent decades of EU history, and not supported by the visions of the EUrocrats, which they openly express in publications on their own website.

Let's at least be honest about where we fit within an evolving EU. It can't stay as it is. It has too many pressures to change.