Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Brexit

If there was a second Brexit referendum how would you vote?


  • Total voters
    1,081


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,534
West is BEST
It would have needed a Parliamentary vote even if it had been binding - the government has no powers just to make laws.

If it had been binding it would have been declared null and void due to the unusually small margin in the result.
 




Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,027
The arse end of Hangleton
That didn't stop Theresa May planning what she actually wanted nor getting the HoC to agree it. She knew she only had a small majority so wasted time having a general election instead.

Oh I agree - we should have been making plans etc so we were on the front foot when talks with the EU started. Problem being, IMO, May is probably the most incompetent PM of modern times - and that takes some doing given the current incumbant.
 
Last edited:






Westdene Seagull

aka Cap'n Carl Firecrotch
NSC Patron
Oct 27, 2003
21,027
The arse end of Hangleton
If it had been binding it would have been declared null and void due to the unusually small margin in the result.

That somewhat depends upon what the conditions in the act for the referendum would have been. They could have said a change would only happen with a super majority or they could have just used a simple majority - that would have been up to the MPs what was in the act.
 












DavidinSouthampton

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 3, 2012
16,594
This deal on the table now, I believe, is palatable for a majority of MPs. Will need to be demonstrated, but it seems that way.

I don't understand what your "none of the above" thing means? You mean we need to consider overturning the result of the ref? I thought you were interested in healing divisions? Sore losers are one thing, sore winners denied would be quite something else.

What will find 50%+ acceptance? The ref we held resulted in a 50%+ result. For leaving.

The argument will be over and done with when we have left. Sure there will still be things to sort out, but knowing how that will go isn't really possible while people are still playing the "should we, shouldn't we leave" game. That discussion is over, it was over as soon as the votes were cast and counted. Once we are out in practice there will no longer be a political incentive to try to make future negotiations difficult in order to facilitate the overturning of the result. Future negotiations will become current negotiations and that is when we will find out what is what, and when pragmatism and mutual interest will finally win the day, as it always should have.

This deal which is on the table now might be palatable to the majority of MPs, but won't be acceptable to the EU. And it is a proposal, not a deal. It is not acceptable to the ROI, and as they will remain as a member of the EU, the EU will support them...... unsurprisingly. This will enable Mr Johnson and his shower to pontificate totally unreasonably about the bully boys of Europe and start pushing for a no deal again.

Plus Cela change, plus c'est la meme chose.
 


hans kraay fan club

The voice of reason.
Helpful Moderator
Mar 16, 2005
61,345
Chandlers Ford
If it had been binding it would have been declared null and void due to the unusually small margin in the result.

The courts have also ruled that the levels of interference and proven illegalities around the vote, would have seen it declared void.
 


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,608
Gods country fortnightly
Now that the dust seems to have settled on the Tories ridiculous attempt at a deal maybe they need to reflect is bit on their English exceptionalism.

Boris would do well to watch the 1996 film "Michael Collins" to fill in his poor knowledge of the troubles In Ireland...

Capture.JPG
 












nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
17,608
Gods country fortnightly


Is it PotG?

Thrifty non-licker
Feb 20, 2017
23,367
Sussex by the Sea
Yeap they used the EU as scapegoat for their failings in 2016 and now they are going to try to do it again, blaming them for their failure to deliver their lies and fantasy

Can you clarify why it is fantasy and impossible to survive as a nation outside of the EU?

Are we so reliant upon them, and so embedded into their system?
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,312
Yeap they used the EU as scapegoat for their failings in 2016 and now they are going to try to do it again, blaming them for their failure to deliver their lies and fantasy

? "they"... the government was mainly on the remain side. or are you saying the electorate blamed EU for their personal failure? silly voters.
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
25,864
This deal which is on the table now might be palatable to the majority of MPs, but won't be acceptable to the EU. And it is a proposal, not a deal. It is not acceptable to the ROI, and as they will remain as a member of the EU, the EU will support them...... unsurprisingly. This will enable Mr Johnson and his shower to pontificate totally unreasonably about the bully boys of Europe and start pushing for a no deal again.

Plus Cela change, plus c'est la meme chose.

If it's a simple case of finding a proposal that will get through the HOC, I have a better proposal than Johnson's. I propose we keep all the benefits of being in the EU, have no border controls, stop paying any contribution and stop adhering to EU rules and regulations.

I can guarantee that will fly through the HOC, can't see any issues with that, whatsoever :wink:
 




Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Can you clarify why it is fantasy and impossible to survive as a nation outside of the EU?

Are we so reliant upon them, and so embedded into their system?

Trade deals, not only with the EU, but with the rest of the world through them.
Every country in the world is in a trading bloc.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here