The Brexit referendum thread: potential consequences for GB, EU and the Brits in CH

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I've always found it at curious term this "People's Vote" that Remainers are campaigning for. As if the first vote wasn't voted for by the people People's Vote campaign puts pressure on Labour leadership

I understand that it's a vote requested by the people rather than the final straw clutched at by David Cameron to help him win the election.

Cameron was aware that there was some pressure to hold such a vote but it was so ill-prepared and scandalously inept that it seems reasonable to hold the vote again but on a level playing field with all the cards on the table.

If vote Leave wins again then, fair's fair, at least the population knows what's what. Plus I think there would be a lot less noise than the there is now.

	Quote:
	I understand that it's a vote requested by the people rather than the final straw clutched at by David Cameron to help him win the election. Cameron was aware that there was some pressure to hold such a vote but it was so ill-prepared and scandalously inept that it seems reasonable to hold the vote again but on a level playing field with all the cards on the table. If vote Leave wins again then, fair's fair, at least the population knows what's what. Plus I think there would be a lot less noise than the there is now.

If vote Remain would win as second vote then I think fair's fair and Leave would be fully within their right to ignore it, just as many on the Remain side are trying to do with the first vote.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	If vote Remain would win as second vote then I think fair's fair and Leave would be fully within their right to ignore it, just as many on the Remain side are trying to do with the first vote.

But I think this is the point. The original referendum and campaign basically hoodwinked the electorate. The outcome was voted on a tissue thin load of smoke and mirrors, not to mention loaded egos.

It looks more like the hardened Brexiters are sh*t scared that a fair and informed campaign will knock the first result resoundingly into the grass.

If they are THAT confident nothing will change then why not go ahead with a new vote?

	Quote:
	But I think this is the point. The original referendum and campaign basically hoodwinked the electorate. The outcome was voted on a tissue thin load of smoke and mirrors, not to mention loaded egos. It looks more like the hardened Brexiters are sh*t scared that a fair and informed campaign will knock the first result resoundingly into the grass. If they are THAT confident nothing will change then why not go ahead with a new vote?

Because this is like asking for a football match to be replayed or an exam retaken because you don't like the outcome. You can have a second vote, but then don't complain when people call for a third one if they don't get the result they want.

The EU do this all the time btw.

[Castro]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	If vote Remain would win as second vote then I think fair's fair and Leave would be fully within their right to ignore it, just as many on the Remain side are trying to do with the first vote.

This has to be about more than mere petulance and kindergarten name calling. If the bounties as promised by Brexiteers are no longer on offer (crashing out on WTO terms) then most sane people would say we need to look at this again. Unless of course the agenda was always a hard brexit and Vote Leave was one massive con job.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Because this is like asking for a football match to be replayed or an exam retaken because you don't like the outcome. You can have a second vote, but then don't complain when people call for a third one if they don't get the result they want. The EU do this all the time btw.

Nope. It's like asking for a football match to be replayed because you deliberately infected the opposing team with salmonella and made them play on a hill the first time around.

[bowlie]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I've always found it at curious term this "People's Vote" that Remainers are campaigning for. As if the first vote wasn't voted for by the people People's Vote campaign puts pressure on Labour leadership

People change their minds. Particularly when they are in possession of more, better quality, facts. Every five years (at a maximum) UK voters are given an opportunity to express their changed opinions at the ballot box.

In this case there is a deadline coming up. (October) Because of this people should be given the opportunity to confirm, or revoke, their previous votes. This is much more important than a parliamentary vote as this is a one-off. Speak now or forever hold your piece.

For Brexiters and remainers alike it would be a confirmation of the people's will.

	Quote:	bowlie
	For Brexiters and remainers alike it would be a confirmation of the people's will.

Yes, but that looks suspiciously like informed democracy, which certainly would not sit well with the leaders of the Brexit movement, nor with certain EF members.

I argued months ago that it would be undemocratic not to hold a confirmatory (or otherwise) referendum. I still believe that.

[J2488]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Because this is like asking for a football match to be replayed or an exam retaken because you don't like the outcome. You can have a second vote, but then don't complain when people call for a third one if they don't get the result they want. The EU do this all the time btw.

If football matches were settled solely by polling the spectators, or exam grades awarded based on polling of the examining authority and those taking the exam, you may well be in danger of having a point.

In reality, it is daft to claim an exercise of democracy is the same as replaying a football match or resitting an exam.

[J2488]

funnily enough, the poll on this thread is 117 for, 62 against.


Or, 69% remain, 31% Leave.

	Quote:	Castro
	This has to be about more than mere petulance and kindergarten name calling. If the bounties as promised by Brexiteers are no longer on offer (crashing out on WTO terms) then most sane people would say we need to look at this again. Unless of course the agenda was always a hard brexit and Vote Leave was one massive con job.

Likewise many the risks promised by Remain have also proven to be false. Both sides lied during the referendum campaigning. There is nothing that has happened in the last two years to suggest this would change.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Likewise many the risks promised by Remain have also proven to be false. Both sides lied during the referendum campaigning. There is nothing that has happened in the last two years to suggest this would change.

Yet you still think there's nothing wrong with proceeding with such a seismic change to the UK, even though the information fed to the population was basically a pack of lies (yes, I agree it was both sides).

It's fairly clear you come down on the Leave side so if the result had been as close as it was but in favour of Remain, and given that you also admit there was misinformation and lies in bucketloads during the campaign, would you have rolled over and accepted the result?

Even Farage was crowing before the vote that if the result was Remain but very close, he wouldn't accept it.

	Quote:
	Yes, but that looks suspiciously like informed democracy, which certainly would not sit well with the leaders of the Brexit movement, nor with certain EF members. I argued months ago that it would be undemocratic not to hold a confirmatory (or otherwise) referendum. I still believe that.

Most folks I know in the UK would agree with you.

There are certain people who are hell-bent on Brexit despite it being undeliverable. Brexit does not mean brexit anymore, but ah feck it, we are doing it anyway. Lots of denial going on.

It must be one of the most peculiar nonsensical oddities in our life time and, if anything, it has shown up British politicians to be cowardly, clueless and incapable of having an honest conversation with the British public about the realities.

[bowlie]

As for the will of the people, let’s not forget that only a third of the electorate voted leave. Slightly fewer voted remain.

I think the apathy of the other third would disappear with a second referendum. Perhaps then we would see the true will of the people.

Something as important as this shouldn’t rest on the decisions of 1 out of 3 voters.

	Quote:
	Yet you still think there's nothing wrong with proceeding with such a seismic change to the UK, even though the information fed to the population was basically a pack of lies (yes, I agree it was both sides). It's fairly clear you come down on the Leave side so if the result had been as close as it was but in favour of Remain, and given that you also admit there was misinformation and lies in bucketloads during the campaign, would you have rolled over and accepted the result? Even Farage was crowing before the vote that if the result was Remain but very close, he wouldn't accept it.

I don't think I would have been shouting for another referendum if Remain had won, rather I think I'd have seen it more as an opportunity missed. There's two reasons for this:

• The lies told by both sides would not have been visible as the status quo would have been kept.
• I subscribe to the Swiss view on referendums that once you have discussed a topic and voted on it, you move on.

	Quote:	Loz1983
	I I subscribe to the Swiss view on referendums that once you have discussed a topic and voted on it, you move on.

Are you suggesting the Swiss never have a referendum twice on the same topic?

[Jim2007]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	[*]I subscribe to the Swiss view on referendums that once you have discussed a topic and voted on it, you move on.[/LIST]

No you don't, all you do is show your ignorance of the process. And at this stage there is no point in engaging with you in this kind of nonsense.

It so happens that the British have a Parliamentary Democracy- very different to the Swiss one, perhaps- where Referendum are, by British Law, advisory- perhaps?

Ah Paddy Passports, are you elegible for one?

https://www.facebook.com/bbccomedy/v...5513284806778/

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	Loz1983
	Have you even read A50? There would be no treaty change in order for the UK to remain part of the programme. This just typifies the sheer inflexibility and dogmatic approach of the EU. If they don't want the UK to remain a member of the programme then they should repay the UK's investment into it. Let the treaties plug that 15% hole.

This should be expected this to be part of the £40bln divorce bill. Check that agreement if it isn't considered already.

[Urs Max]

	Quote:	J2488
	funnily enough, the poll on this thread is 117 for, 62 against. Or, 69% remain, 31% Leave.

EF members are hardly representative of the UK population