If there is a second referendum ...

StevieJ

lisyloo wrote: »

Only one anecdote but my brother who has a Thai wife has no problem with the thorough checks she and he both had to go through, but doesn't agree with freedom of movement for criminals from Europe.


I think your suspicion is far too simplistic.

I am not sure what point you are trying to make?

lisyloo

StevieJ wrote: »

I am not sure what point you are trying to make?

The point is that people have all sorts of reasons for voting as they did. Those in the forces (or ex-forces) have one point of view, eco warriors another, people with spouses from outside the EU another, those who fought in the war another, those without a stake in society another, those who live in London another, those who live in rural areas another etc. etc.



I think your suspicion that downward pressure on wages is a major reason is too simplistic and it's far more complicated than that.

BLB53

The freedom to vote for other people to have a supply problem with their medicines, for it to be necessary to bring in the army (no deal preparations), to bring economic hardship to others, make it easier for criminals, immigrants etc. is not a freedom that should have put to the democratic vote...................but I accept that we did.

I guess the decision is one thing and then the implementation of the decision to leave quite another. Of course it must help if the people charged with delivery actually believe in and are 100% committed to what they are asked to do. Unfortunately I have no control over this part of the operation.

lisyloo

BLB53 wrote: »

I guess the decision is one thing and then the implementation of the decision to leave quite another. Of course it must help if the people charged with delivery actually believe in and are 100% committed to what they are asked to do. Unfortunately I have no control over this part of the operation.

So you’re implying it’s quite possible And other people are to blame, whereas some of us think it was always impossible e.g. to solve the Irish border issue or with extremely risky/big consequences e.g. increasing the risk of a terrorist attack.

But I do agree that making a theorectical decision in principle can ignore/overlook an awful lot of problems/risks.

BLB53

So you’re implying it’s quite possible And other people are to blame, whereas some of us think it was always impossible e.g. to solve the Irish border issue or with extremely risky/big consequences e.g. increasing the risk of a terrorist attack.

The MPs gave us a free vote and promised to implement whatever decision we made. We voted to leave and handed it back to the politicians to deliver on the decision.

You seem to imply that if they are so incompetent, they make an omnishambles of the leaving process, then we should abandon the decision to leave.

My solution - if the politicians cannot or more accurately will not implement the referendum then I would replace them with others who are prepared to get on with the task and can respect democracy.

They are playing with fire if they think they can avoid delivering Brexit cos its a bit too tricky or they think they can get away with some wishy washy BRINO. They should take stock of what's happening in Paris where people are unhappy with being ignored or taken for granted by out of touch politicians.

lisyloo

Not not incompetence I said it was an impossible task.
A bit too tricky is seriously minimising the problem.
We are talking about plans to use the army. I don’t think this was about stopping protests but to ensure food/medicine delivery when it becomes every man for himself.
I think you are massively under egging the potential issues of ambulances not being able to get through due to gridlock in Kent, migrants on the beaches, fights over food etc.
If you think that’s dramatic then why do we need to have the army on standby for no deal?

I don’t expect you to take my word for it but Cressida !!!! has said we’ll be at greater risk if we leave without a deal.

I had a laugh at the papers a week back, when the Man Utd manager was front page news. This is not Paris or France.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

Not not incompetence I said it was an impossible task.
...

Why is leaving an impossible task?

Do you not think that Cameron sought some counsel on the referendum before deciding on the 2 options?

He struck me as a marketing led type, not a reckless individual.

The thing is this. For our political system to work, we have to assume that those at the helm are indeed competent.

Leaving is entirely possible. It is a value judgement as to what is an acceptable cost.

BobQ

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

You talk about needing fruit pickers etc. !

I think you will find that I did not mention fruit pickers in the thread., let alone in the message you were commenting upon.

BobQ

BLB53 wrote: »

I am continually surprised at the excuses remainers put forward to justify their decisions to reject democracy.

What's not to understand about wanting the freedom to run your own country? That's what all this was about in 2016 and will always be what its all about.

I cannot see how asking for a second vote based on the outcome of the negotiations is rejecting democracy.

The final decision will be made by Parliament and if they cannot agree it has to go to an election or referendum.

BikingBud

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

Obviously yes, on a question that has only two opposing answers.


If a few years ago we'd had a referendum on hanging, the vote might have been 52/48. Obviously you can't half-hang someone.
It's the same with lots of controversial questions. You can't be half-nuclear, half in favour of kindness, protection of vulnerable, environment, gay marriage, and loads of other things.


It shows the stupidity of trying to equate democracy with mere comparison of numbers, and of referendums in particular.
That's why until now we've had a representative democracy. We elect people we believe are good and attuned to the feelings of their electorate, and then we trust them to do the best thay can and support a government and a prime minister who show a lead.


Leadership means being ahead of events and people's inadequately expressed wishes. It's not agonising over 52/48 figures. They have the confidence to lead, and then periodically by general elections are judged on the results.

See https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75176774#Comment_75176774

If the specific referendum question was should we reinstate the death penalty and the electorate decided yes then again Parliament should pass the law and make it so. But no doubt people afterwards would complain that we cannot electrocute or hang the criminals, we thought they were going to be killed humanely, you know like putting the sick dog to sleep

Our politicians are all wasters and I say again May has gone up in my estimation. She is caught in the middle of the bun fight and continually challenges others to deliver or formally object. On both counts all we hear is noise.