Second Referendum

[CornishView]

How about having a Referendum on having Referendums?
MPs are our elected representatives, and should decide these matters on our behalf, because hardly 1% of us - if we're honest - knew the complexities 2 years ago.
(I hope the people of Uxbridge vote Boris The Twat out at the next Election, bearing in mind he put his own ambition above his Country and Constituency).

[Pontificator]

Have been against this but am fast coming to the conclusion that it may be the only answer to the current impasse. The current Parliament seem unable to come to a resolution of this issue and there is no guarantee that if we held a General Election, that the new parliament would be anymore capable of finding a resolution than the current one.

We would need to insure that both no deal and remain were on the ballot sheet along with the deal negotiated with the EU.

Don't think it will be a long term solution, only time and superseding  events can do that, but in the short term it will provide an answer.

Whatever happens in the short term, the issue of our future relationship will be at the heart of the next General Election.

Sad that it has come to this because for democracy to work, when we lose we need to accept the result. I heard someone on a podcast say of democracy that it is chaotic and a pain in the ass, but the alternative  is fascism.

What makes you think that if there was a second referendum and leave won again that the result would be accepted any more than it was the first time.
The important part of your post is when you say that when you lose a vote you have to learn to accept the result.

No you don't. Democracy is absolutely about being able to change your mind. There simply is no Brexit that gives us what we've got now. There was no plan before the referendum for leaving, the stark reality of consequences of leaving are now apparent and it should be stopped. It is because it is such a croc of shit that parliament cannot pull the trigger and shoot us all in the head.

Democracy is about being able to change your mind but after implementing the result of a vote. There would, quite rightly, be absolute uproar if we voted in a Labour/Tory or other Government and then people said we don't like that. lets vote again.

WTF has the last three years been about other than trying to implement the result FFS. It beggars belief how stupid some people can be at times. If you shoot yourself in the head you cant change your fucking mind afterwards.

[strawman]

Have been against this but am fast coming to the conclusion that it may be the only answer to the current impasse. The current Parliament seem unable to come to a resolution of this issue and there is no guarantee that if we held a General Election, that the new parliament would be anymore capable of finding a resolution than the current one.

We would need to insure that both no deal and remain were on the ballot sheet along with the deal negotiated with the EU.

Don't think it will be a long term solution, only time and superseding  events can do that, but in the short term it will provide an answer.

Whatever happens in the short term, the issue of our future relationship will be at the heart of the next General Election.

Sad that it has come to this because for democracy to work, when we lose we need to accept the result. I heard someone on a podcast say of democracy that it is chaotic and a pain in the ass, but the alternative  is fascism.

What makes you think that if there was a second referendum and leave won again that the result would be accepted any more than it was the first time.
The important part of your post is when you say that when you lose a vote you have to learn to accept the result.

No you don't. Democracy is absolutely about being able to change your mind. There simply is no Brexit that gives us what we've got now. There was no plan before the referendum for leaving, the stark reality of consequences of leaving are now apparent and it should be stopped. It is because it is such a croc of shit that parliament cannot pull the trigger and shoot us all in the head.

Democracy is about being able to change your mind but after implementing the result of a vote. There would, quite rightly, be absolute uproar if we voted in a Labour/Tory or other Government and then people said we don't like that. lets vote again.

WTF has the last three years been about other than trying to implement the result FFS. It beggars belief how stupid some people can be at times. If you shoot yourself in the head you cant change your fucking mind afterwards.

I think it's been more about politicking, Labours one and only tactic is to try and get another GE, rather than actually trying to implement it. 

However in line with your thinking, we should hold another GE, Labour should get voted in and then the result should be ignored, go back to parliament for a vote and if they can't carry the vote in Parliament then we retain the status quo, just because lot of people believe that voting in a Labour Government would definitely be shooting ourselves in the head.

[Derek Hardballs]

Ok so the argument against a second referendum is that it’s ‘anti-democratic’. How exactly is having a further vote on the specifics of Brexit, having learnt a great deal more about what it entails anti-democratic? Surely the argument for leaving has been comprehensively won after thee years? So why are so many leavers terrified it seems at giving the final seal of approval back to the ahem people?

Also if a majority of people decided after a vote to put their hands into a fire, how exactly is that the right thing to do? The bizarre wish to make our lives more difficult ‘cuz we voted for it’ suggests we have a country full of masochists.

[strawman]

Ok so the argument against a second referendum is that it’s ‘anti-democratic’. How exactly is having a further vote on the specifics of Brexit, having learnt a great deal more about what it entails anti-democratic? Surely the argument for leaving has been comprehensively won after thee years? So why are so many leavers terrified it seems at giving the final seal of approval back to the ahem people?

Also if a majority of people decided after a vote to put their hands into a fire, how exactly is that the right thing to do? The bizarre wish to make our lives more difficult ‘cuz we voted for it’ suggests we have a country full of masochists.

The arguments for leave have certainly not been comprehensively won. The arguments for remain seem to be "well we keep what we have now", but that would seem to assume that there is a status quo. There is no status quo. The EU will change. We have no idea what our situation will be in 10 years time, stay or leave. The major countries of the EU are not exactly an economic wonder now that the ECB has stopped QE. WE do not know in either direction, both are completely surmised. 

The only way we could even attempt to keep the status quo from staying in  is to veto absolutely everything we can to avoid major changes and I'm sure that would pretty well piss the EU off, we have pissed em off for years anyway. And there may be a point where unanimity is no longer available. There are already proposals for uniform corporation tax rates, which has pissed the Irish off.

But those with clout in the EU are pushing for unanimity in more areas to be abandoned to majority voting.

"In addition, the scale and urgency of the challenges facing Member States today – be it in terms of internal and external security, globalisation, migration, climate change, or adapting to the digital revolution – means that important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power."


Note those words "important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power["
We know better than you

Luckily to enable majority voting it requires unanimity,  but they won't let this go.

https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/fil...lles_2.pdf

There is no status quo

[Pontificator]

Ok so the argument against a second referendum is that it’s ‘anti-democratic’. How exactly is having a further vote on the specifics of Brexit, having learnt a great deal more about what it entails anti-democratic? Surely the argument for leaving has been comprehensively won after thee years? So why are so many leavers terrified it seems at giving the final seal of approval back to the ahem people?

Also if a majority of people decided after a vote to put their hands into a fire, how exactly is that the right thing to do? The bizarre wish to make our lives more difficult ‘cuz we voted for it’ suggests we have a country full of masochists.

The arguments for leave have certainly not been comprehensively won. The arguments for remain seem to be "well we keep what we have now", but that would seem to assume that there is a status quo. There is no status quo. The EU will change. We have no idea what our situation will be in 10 years time, stay or leave. The major countries of the EU are not exactly an economic wonder now that the ECB has stopped QE. WE do not know in either direction, both are completely surmised. 

The only way we could even attempt to keep the status quo from staying in  is to veto absolutely everything we can to avoid major changes and I'm sure that would pretty well piss the EU off, we have pissed em off for years anyway. And there may be a point where unanimity is no longer available. There are already proposals for uniform corporation tax rates, which has pissed the Irish off.

But those with clout in the EU are pushing for unanimity in more areas to be abandoned to majority voting.

"In addition, the scale and urgency of the challenges facing Member States today – be it in terms of internal and external security, globalisation, migration, climate change, or adapting to the digital revolution – means that important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power."


Note those words "important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power["
We know better than you

Luckily to enable majority voting it requires unanimity,  but they won't let this go.

https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/fil...lles_2.pdf

There is no status quo

Wow that was showstopper

[baggy1]

Ok so the argument against a second referendum is that it’s ‘anti-democratic’. How exactly is having a further vote on the specifics of Brexit, having learnt a great deal more about what it entails anti-democratic? Surely the argument for leaving has been comprehensively won after thee years? So why are so many leavers terrified it seems at giving the final seal of approval back to the ahem people?

Also if a majority of people decided after a vote to put their hands into a fire, how exactly is that the right thing to do? The bizarre wish to make our lives more difficult ‘cuz we voted for it’ suggests we have a country full of masochists.

The arguments for leave have certainly not been comprehensively won. The arguments for remain seem to be "well we keep what we have now", but that would seem to assume that there is a status quo. There is no status quo. The EU will change. We have no idea what our situation will be in 10 years time, stay or leave. The major countries of the EU are not exactly an economic wonder now that the ECB has stopped QE. WE do not know in either direction, both are completely surmised. 

The only way we could even attempt to keep the status quo from staying in  is to veto absolutely everything we can to avoid major changes and I'm sure that would pretty well piss the EU off, we have pissed em off for years anyway. And there may be a point where unanimity is no longer available. There are already proposals for uniform corporation tax rates, which has pissed the Irish off.

But those with clout in the EU are pushing for unanimity in more areas to be abandoned to majority voting.

"In addition, the scale and urgency of the challenges facing Member States today – be it in terms of internal and external security, globalisation, migration, climate change, or adapting to the digital revolution – means that important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power."


Note those words "important decisions should not be allowed to be held hostage while Member States seek to exact the highest possible price in return for not using their veto power["
We know better than you

Luckily to enable majority voting it requires unanimity,  but they won't let this go.

https://ec.europa.eu/epsc/sites/epsc/fil...lles_2.pdf

There is no status quo

The argument isn't "lets keep the status quo" at all, the argument is that it isn't broken and causing us problems, don't try and fix it by leaping into the unknown. Your argument works both ways, we definitely don't know what the future holds but why don't we wait until we get there before we make a decision on what it is.

Nobody would be against leaving the EU if there was a rational and well thought out reason for doing it - there really isn't to the point that you could get 5 Brexiteers in a room and still not get an agreed approach. 

We've opened the discussions about leaving amongst ourselves, let's have a 2nd referendum to see if the majority want to leave still now that they are better informed. If we decide to stay in now it doesn't mean forever, it means, if we are serious, that we can think out the best approach to doing so and get prepared.

Leaving now is chaotic and insane based on where we are.

[Black Lake Victoria]

What's the celebrity world think? I'll ask David Beckham next time I see him on the 87 bus or in the doctors waiting room? Democracy my arse...if voting changed anything we wouldn't be allowed to do it (wasn't Mark Twain quote)

[baggy1]

Wow that was showstopper

It would be if the basis of the point was accurate

[Shabby Russian]

The other point I would make is that the issue of Europe will go forward to future General Elections.

If there is no second referendum, then I would expect a favourable electoral result for any party that campaigns for closer ties to the EU.

But if there was a second referendum, unless there was an overwhelming result for remain, I suspect that Eurosceptic parties would do well at the next General Election.

With that in mind, and as someone who is in favour of closer ties to the EU, I think there is much to be lost from holding a second referendum, and much to be gained by leave supporters.

Trouble is in the short term I am not certain what the alternative is to a referendum.