Brexit

[jonwat]

2 hours ago, andydclements said:

I don't understand why people would object to a second referendum. 

If your team had just won the Grand Prix would you agree to a re-run next week because all the other teams had been down on power or the wrong tyres or crashed?

[Neal H]

The only reason we haven't left yet is because the majority of politicians don't want to leave. Are we supposed to keep voting until we give the answer the politicians want? That's not my vision of democracy.

Frankly I've given up on the whole thing - Brexit and democracy!

[andydclements]

3 hours ago, jonwat said:

If your team had just won the Grand Prix would you agree to a re-run next week because all the other teams had been down on power or the wrong tyres or crashed?

It's nothing like that.

It's not "winning", it's about what the voters of the UK want, which is not a defined set of criteria.

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

I agree with the previous poster who poo-pooed the "we've done the vote once, so why should we have to do it again?" notion. We had a General Election on 7 May 2015. We then had another one on 6 June 2017 (despite the new fixed term legislation!) and the outcome was quite different. That's a period of 25 months between votes. As for Brexit, we're now 30 months on since the referendum and an awful a lot has changed. Why shouldn't we have a second referendum, now that the deadline is near?

Two votes to be cast on each ballot paper.

Q1: Leave EU on 29.03.19 or Remain in EU?

Q2: If Leave EU wins Q1, then Leave with No Deal or Leave with Mrs May's Deal?

Both votes must be placed for a ballot paper to count.

Simples. 

Right now I'll sort out the Middle East...

[Chillidoggy]

19 minutes ago, Buddsy said:

We already held that vote.

Why would there need to be another vote asking the same question?

Why would there need to be another vote asking the same question?

 

buddsy

 

I saw what you did there.

[andydclements]

A general elect is exactly a referendum, of who should represent the constituency in parliament. It's also not fixed,  it's fixed at the upper end of the time but can also be called by the existing government.

Edited December 20, 2018 by andydclements

[Barrykearley]

And represent us they do. I cannot recall a time where the winning party get harassed constantly to have a new election.

leave was the result. It’s not been implemented yet. It needs to be before we do anything else

[duncx]

1 hour ago, LotusLeftLotusRight said:

I agree with the previous poster who poo-pooed the "we've done the vote once, so why should we have to do it again?" notion. We had a General Election on 7 May 2015. We then had another one on 6 June 2017 (despite the new fixed term legislation!) and the outcome was quite different. That's a period of 25 months between votes. As for Brexit, we're now 30 months on since the referendum and an awful a lot has changed. Why shouldn't we have a second referendum, now that the deadline is near?

Two votes to be cast on each ballot paper.

Q1: Leave EU on 29.03.19 or Remain in EU?

Q2: If Leave EU wins Q1, then Leave with No Deal or Leave with Mrs May's Deal?

Both votes must be placed for a ballot paper to count.

Simples. 

Right now I'll sort out the Middle East...

Tut, keep up at the back, I posted exactly those two 2nd referendum questions and the 'must answer' rule several pages ago

EDIT: and just to be clear (again), I'm not necessarily in favour of remaining or even a second referendum - just that if we do have a second one the result needs to be clear. If leave won again then remainers would still get a say in how we left and hopefully you would feel more involved in the process.

Edited December 20, 2018 by duncx

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Yeah I know, but I don't think anyone took any notice!

[andydclements]

48 minutes ago, Buddsy said:

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (c. 14) is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that received Royal Assent on 15 September 2011, introducing fixed-term elections to the Westminster parliament for the first time. Under the provisions of the Act, parliamentary general elections must be held every five years, beginning in 2015.

 

So when is the next Scottish Independence election?

If they vote exit will they be able to vote back in the next one 5 years later.

If the Brexit referendum was the same as an election you'll have your chance again in 5 years time.

Everyone knew what the referendum was for and voted accordingly. 

 

buddsy

In the UK we still have the option or early elections, called by parliament (or by parliament having failed to decide whether they should), so even though it's called the "fixed term" it's not fixed, it just sets out the conditions for calling an election such as a vote of no confidence.

 

A general election takes effect immediately, and the end result is known (it will be one of the candidates on the ballot), but the referendum hasn't actually resulted in us leaving yet, so a second vote still has purpose.

[andydclements]

Well, if it's democracy, then there can be no blocking a call for a vote, although we still have a monarchy so aren't a republic.

I think if there was another vote, then at least people would be able to vote based on what the deal is not what the bunch of ignorant a*holes (Farage, BoJo etc) said we would get (access to free market, no immigration, not subject to EU rules etc), and based on how we're viewed by our allies in EU. It would be a referendum based on fact not fantasy.

[Andyww]

The reason against a second referendum is simple: It renders the first one null and void. A vote with a record turnout is going to be completely ignored.

The difference is an election every few years simply replaces a load of useless politicians with other equally useless ones. A referendum is a once-only change. The leaflet stated "We will implement what you decide". It did not say "We will do sod all of any use and ask you again later".

 

[Steve V8]

29 minutes ago, andydclements said:

It would be a referendum based on fact not fantasy.

Those of us who voted to leave know exactly what we voted for. It was crystal clear, leave means leave, simple as that. FACT

The only fantasy here is expecting to get any type of pre exit deal that will be of any benefit to anyone other than the EU. 

2.5 years of wasted time and huge amounts of our money to find out what was blatantly obvious. FANTASY

[jonwat]

11 hours ago, andydclements said:

Well, if it's democracy, then there can be no blocking a call for a vote, although we still have a monarchy so aren't a republic.

Parliament blocked a referendum for years when all the opinion polls showed we wanted one, Cameron only allowed it because of the rise of UKIP taking all his voters & the likes of Labour would still be blocking it because they know we wanted out.

[JG220]

Tide does seem to be turning back to reason

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/20/polls-stay-eu-yougov-brexit-peoples-vote?fbclid=IwAR1_I5xBZR-whHGrCgjCl1st36WvbQLjnq1fhUyr8h4ZULCnBitpdnRXhYM

 

[Barrykearley]

I reckon if you asked the question :-

 

should we remain in the EU?

or all drop dead immediately?

 

that would possibly be more balanced.

 

we have had a referendum and a result. This silly “deal” was never on the ballot paper - and won’t get parliamentary backing. So it’s all a bit of a nonsense really

[Barrykearley]

Saw this today - sums it up well

 

"Before we joined the EU, we used to have a system whereby only an elected Parliament in this country could make the laws. After the signing of the Maastricht Treaty and subsequent ones, this has disappeared and we now have an unelected European Commission proposing laws to the European Parliament (which our MEPs can be outvoted on by MEPs who represent constituents in other countries). My questions are as follows:

1) Why do you like the new system?

2) Where's the democracy?

3) What's wrong with going back to the old system, like we Brexiteers want to do?

The other point I wanted to mention is trade. Let's have a look at the facts:

1) The UK is the EU's second largest export market.

2) The UK is the number one destination for exports of German cars.

3) The UK is one of the largest economies in the world.

4) The UK is a member of dozens of international organisations.

My questions to the Remainers about these are as follows:

1) Why do you think the UK will be "isolated" once we leave the EU, given the above points?

2) Why do you think one of the largest economies in the world is suddenly going to face a trade embargo or massive trade restrictions when these things go against WTO rules?

3) Why do you think one of the largest economies in the world is unable to cope outside a political union?

I have one final question for the Remainers:

When are you going to accept the referendum result and join the Brexiteers in campaigning for a bright future for the UK outside the EU?

[march]

The BBC local news excelled themselves last night. They interviewed a Managing Director of a local firm who gave three example of problems in getting equipment for his company should we leave the EU before coming to tears and threatening to close his business. No.1 was a Japanese (Mitsubishi) robot, 2nd was something Swiss (can't remember what it was) and thirdly a bit of rubber conveyor belt which came from France.

I am sure other countries make conveyor belts and well for the others I think he needs a lesson in Geography. This propaganda is getting ridiculous.

I wanted a deal to be made and knew compromises needed to be made - but not anymore, I am sick of so much fake remain propaganda being pedalled that I want to just exit the EU - and sod everybody. (Yellow jacket in the back of the car  already 🙂). At least when when leading up the vote both sides were as bad a each other and it didn't take too much of an intellect to pick out the lies and propaganda.

 

[C8RKH]

20 hours ago, andydclements said:

Well, if it's democracy, then there can be no blocking a call for a vote

I actually totally disagree with your logic here, in fact, you are not using logic!

We had a democratic vote and the result was clear - leave. So until the result of that vote is honoured, then, democracy has not been served and the will, at the time of the vote, of the people, has not been prosecuted. Ergo, no democracy.

Now, after the will of the people has been prosecuted, and the result of the democratic vote has been executed, there is no reason at all for calls not to be made for a new, fresh vote, on whether we should rejoin the EU or stay independent of it.

So no amount of smart ass comments trying to say that without another vote it is not democratic please. Undermining the result of the first vote is not, however you want to tart it up or paint up, democracy in action.

Also, at no point for the first vote, was there any discussion about terms or deals being a pre-consideration. It was a simple question, should we stay in or leave. End of. Everything else is just being used to confuse, obfuscate and delay the process of prosecuting what was the democratic decision of the people at the time of the vote.

So can we stop the bull shit and just get on with it?

[C8RKH]

23 hours ago, andydclements said:

A general election takes effect immediately, and the end result is known (it will be one of the candidates on the ballot), but the referendum hasn't actually resulted in us leaving yet, so a second vote still has purpose.

Also, if you want to pick up people get your own facts straight too please. We do not, in the UK vote for a Prime Minister in a general election (as you pointed out earlier the UK is not a republic). We actually vote for a Party to lead and it is the name of the Parties, not the candidates, that appear on the ballot papers is it not? Usually, the leader of said party then accepts the post of Prime Minister and forms a government.  At no time has the "name" of the candidate been used at a General Election to select the Prime Minister. That is why when May was being shouted down bu the narcissist Sturgeon and others for not been "voted in" all they were doing was showing their own ignorance. It is the leader at the time, of the party voted in to power, who becomes the Prime Minister and if May had merely pointed this out then we would not have had that bloody stupid and disastrous snap election in the first place.

[C8RKH]

I could go to Hull and Boston and Grantham tomorrow and do a poll of 10,000 people and around 7000 of them would be asking why we are not out yet. Representative samples are not worth the effort of doing them, as several of our recent elections and votes have proven well. More obfuscation. (if you have not noticed this is my word of the week and I award myself a wee dram every time I get to use it). 

[ChrisJ]

1 hour ago, C8RKH said:

I award myself a wee dram every time I get to use it. 

Can you still stand up

[andydclements]

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

I actually totally disagree with your logic here, in fact, you are not using logic!

We had a democratic vote and the result was clear - leave. So until the result of that vote is honoured, then, democracy has not been served and the will, at the time of the vote, of the people, has not been prosecuted. Ergo, no democracy.

Now, after the will of the people has been prosecuted, and the result of the democratic vote has been executed, there is no reason at all for calls not to be made for a new, fresh vote, on whether we should rejoin the EU or stay independent of it.

So no amount of smart ass comments trying to say that without another vote it is not democratic please. Undermining the result of the first vote is not, however you want to tart it up or paint up, democracy in action.

Also, at no point for the first vote, was there any discussion about terms or deals being a pre-consideration. It was a simple question, should we stay in or leave. End of. Everything else is just being used to confuse, obfuscate and delay the process of prosecuting what was the democratic decision of the people at the time of the vote.

So can we stop the bull shit and just get on with it?

Democratic process has the option for opinions to be re-polled, just in the same way that we review the decision of which person will represent us as the MP/Councillor/MEP etc. So, there is the logic that i did use, so you are in fact completely incorrect there (as it's your uninformed view as to what thought process I'd gone through). So feel free to apologies for a lie.

2 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Also, if you want to pick up people get your own facts straight too please. We do not, in the UK vote for a Prime Minister in a general election (as you pointed out earlier the UK is not a republic). We actually vote for a Party to lead and it is the name of the Parties, not the candidates, that appear on the ballot papers is it not? Usually, the leader of said party then accepts the post of Prime Minister and forms a government.  At no time has the "name" of the candidate been used at a General Election to select the Prime Minister. That is why when May was being shouted down bu the narcissist Sturgeon and others for not been "voted in" all they were doing was showing their own ignorance. It is the leader at the time, of the party voted in to power, who becomes the Prime Minister and if May had merely pointed this out then we would not have had that bloody stupid and disastrous snap election in the first place.

Perhaps you'd care to re-read my post. I stated that it's a vote for a candidate, I at no point mentioned PM. In fact, that was a reply to  a discussion where I specified that it was the representative in parliament, so it's clear that i meant the MP. 

No, you don't vote for the party, if it was for the party, then in the event of the candidate having to resign (or death etc)  then the party would appoint a new MP.  It's for a specific candidate.

[Barrykearley]

They have the audacity to re-poll this decision and you can expect widespread and very serious public disorder.  

We are less than a decade or two away from a United States or Europe with a common armed forces and no control of our own country. There’s a whole lot of folks whom aren’t utterly blinkered and can see this coming. I’m not sure I’d say civil war - but it’ll get very close

[oilmagnet477]

The EU approach to 'democracy' has been exposed as, at the very least, totally flawed.

The Danish have a referendum on the EU and have to have a second go to get an acceptable result.

The Irish have a referendum on the EU and have to have a scond vote to get an acceptable result.

The Brits have a referendum on the EU and, as yet haven't had to suffer a second vote - surprise surprise (Cue Cilla....) the EU are being as obstructive as conceivably possible.

Having voted originally to remain (simply to avoid the chaos that I correctly foresaw), I for one would seriously tell the EU where to stick it come a second vote.