If there is a second referendum ...

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I'd say it refutes your claim pretty well though. Can you name any former colonies we gave back out of the goodness of our hearts, without the locals having some sort of uprising first?

Australia, Canada and New Zealand off the top of my head. I'd say that refutes your claim pretty well.

Herzlos

cogito wrote: »

Australia, Canada and New Zealand off the top of my head. I'd say that refutes your claim pretty well.

All of which still have Elizabeth II as their notional head of state, so I'm not sure they count as being returned to their own country. But otherwise you are right; they didn't fight us for independence.

Tromking

Herzlos wrote: »

All of which still have Elizabeth II as their notional head of state, so I'm not sure they count as being returned to their own country. But otherwise you are right; they didn't fight us for independence.

Give it up fella.
You imagined a negative narrative about Britain and surprise, surprise it didn’t exist.

Theophile

cogito wrote: »

.....we leave on the 29th March without a political deal. If we remain in the EU beyond that date, we would have to submit candidates for the EU Parliament elections with the prospect of every UK MEP being a UKIP member. I'm sure the EU would be thrilled especially with the likelihood that many other MEP's would be from 'populist' parties.

Why would there be a prospect of every UK MEP being a UKIP member when a majority of the electorate is now pro Remain?

(It is also interesting to note that funds have been set aside for the UK's participation in 2019's EU elections.;))

https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-supporters-worry-electoral-commission-planning-for-eu-elections-2018-5?r=UK&IR=T

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

All of which still have Elizabeth II as their notional head of state, so I'm not sure they count as being returned to their own country. But otherwise you are right; they didn't fight us for independence.

That is their choice! It is not something we have forced on them, they chose to continue with her as the Head of State, It does not mean they are not independent.

Back at the end of the last century Australia had a referendum about removing the Queen as Head of State and having a president. They could not have had that referendum if they were not independent.

Oh, and we need a visa to go to Australia.

Theophile

badgerhead wrote: »

I wouldn't even bother with another referendum. Just withdraw A50, make a statement to the public, that there is too much to lose. You'll hate me but your kids are gonna love it.

That would be ideal, but politically unfeasable.
My money is on an extension of Art.50 to ultimately end up with a Norway + model.

Tromking

Theophile wrote: »

That would be ideal, but politically unfeasable.
My money is on an extension of Art.50 to ultimately end up with a Norway + model.

Remainers underestimate the political fallout of an Art. 50 extension IMO.
I sense the lancing of the constitutional Brexit boil via a clean no deal Brexit is gaining traction among the public and MP’s alike.

Arklight

Tromking wrote: »

Those things are undoubtedly a bad thing, I’m just highlighting the Remainer Historical Revisionists who in order to make an anti Brexit argument tend to make sh*t up or resort to hyperbole.

As a Remainer, or 'Enemy of the People' as I am referred to around here - I would solely like to see some credible plan from Brexiters as to what is going to happen after March.

If there's legitimately a glittering future we can step towards, then fantastic. So far nothing has been outlined other than silly jingoism that framed by a nationalistic rewriting of the past involving a very mangled, revised version, of what some people think the British Empire was like.

It's 2019. About the only thing that lingers from the days of Empire is the resentment from the people who lived under it. The people you lot are all assuring us are all "lining up" to sign sweetheart free trade deals. Except not one country has come forward publicly and our own government is now panicking.

MisterMotivated

MobileSaver wrote: »

Sorry but no; asking again is the very essence of democracy. I totally understand why Brexiteers are desperate for another referendum not to happen but to claim it is undemocratic is irrefutably false.

It's undemocratic because, before the vote, we had Leave and Remain campaigners putting forward their arguments. Since then, all we've been allowed to see/hear from the media are the people who were unhappy with the outcome of the vote, trying to convince Leave voters they were wrong/stupid/drunk/high, and undermining the process to such an extent they hope the constant bickering in parliament will lead people to give up on Leave through exasperation like some frustrated parent eventually buying their child a toy to shut them up.

1. "Nigel Farage is a liar, we need to overturn the referendum"
2. "People have probably changed their minds by now, we need to overturn the referendum"
3. "All the old people who voted Leave are probably dead now, we need to overturn the referendum"
4. "One man who supported Leave may (or may not) have been a bit dodgy, we need to overturn the referendum"

Um, yes you can actually. The public's representatives, i.e. Members of Parliament, can trigger a vote of no confidence and if successful hold another General Election. This has happened several times over the years; the last time being in 1979 when Labour were kicked out before their 5 years were up and replaced by the Conservatives

It did not happen before their 5 years had even begun. Parliament didn't say "Labour have won the election, but they'll probably be rubbish, we should just vote again now"


So far, all people have done is speculate on all the negative things that might happen (though none of the doom and gloom economic forecasts about the immediate referendum aftermath seem to have come to pass); that is not sufficient to call the result of the referendum a mistake. If Remain had won, would you allow another referendum to be brought about through constant campaigning by Leave voters about how, through reaffirming our alllegiance to the EU, we're now going to be faced with being forced to join the Euro, be a part of the European army (which will of course insist on national service), allow our budget to be overseen and eventually dictated entirely by Brussels, be forced to limit our non-EU exports to allow smaller member countries to increase theirs, replace the NHS with a European-derived private healthcare service?

Tammer

I think a sensible way forward would be for a 2nd referendum asking the following:
1. Do you agree the UK should proceed with withdrawing from the EU on Theresa May's deal?

2. Do you agree the UK should proceed with withdrawing from the EU with no deal?

3. Do you agree that Brexit should be cancelled with a further vote on it not sooner than 5 years from now?

Just my thoughts. Seems a pretty fair to all and democratic way forward? Maybe 1 option has to come in at least with more than 50% of the vote?