Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
First big mistake.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Brexit
- Thread starter KingstonSeagull
- Start date
First big mistake.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
Apart from the missing and late postal votes from people abroad who were entitled to vote.
Those who had been abroad for more than 15 years and the three million odd Europeans who have lived here for decades, married and had families, but not allowed to vote. It affects them very much.
The corrupt breaking of Electoral Law, and vast sums of money from dubious sources for the Vote Leave campaign.
The government blocking any public enquiries into the illegal money.
Apart from that, it's all hunkey dorey.
Dr. No
Well-known member
- Nov 28, 2016
- 560
dingodan
New member
- Feb 16, 2011
- 10,080
You'd better hope we have something positive to replace it with then.
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
[tweet]1085900390770520064[/tweet]
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 70,150
Needs its own dedicated debating society and TV channel then. Maybe it could be called 'Just Get It Done You Utter Useless C**ts'
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,293
Why was it inevitable that the situation would change?
It's nothing to do with coming to a result MPs want and everything to do with coming to a result where everyone actually understands what it actually is. Saying "I want to Leave" is pointless if you don't then specify what it means to leave. It's like deciding to "leave the house" without deciding whether you want to go to the football, the pub, the beach, the chippy, the gym, the shops etc.
lawros left foot
Glory hunting since 1969
An argument for the June 2016 referendum, was that the EU had fundamentally changed from the first referendum in 1974, therefore it wasn’t ‘ anti democratic ‘ to have it.
The questions that face us now, have fundamentally changed since June 2016, but for us to have a third referendum that’s anti democratic.
The questions that face us now, have fundamentally changed since June 2016, but for us to have a third referendum that’s anti democratic.
Recognising that the self-destructive path we are on is potentially hugely damaging to the nation, and seeking a way to resolve that, is pretty 'sane'. The best solution would be revoke A50 immediately, apologise to Europe and the rest of the world for all the uncertainty we've caused by being such self-important drama-queens, then getting our heads down and trying to rebuild our economy and reputation.
That seems impossible, as too many people will cry into their Daily Mail about being denied their will (to destroy the UK and decimate the freedoms of its people). So in order to keep the about turn 'democratic' we unfortunately need a second vote. Hopefully free from illegal funding, campaign lies and nefarious foreign influence.
Even though 'what was available at the time' has been proven to be full of deliberate misinformation, funded illegally, and all those 'eligible' did NOT get a vote?
Okay mate.
We're probably going to get battered by a rejuvenated Man Utd.
We are. And if we are I promise not to make any cheap gags about the benefits of a Norwegian solution.
And what happens if the unthinkable happens and there is a small majority in favour of leave?
surrey jim
Not in Surrey
Best of 5
Then, given that people are so much better informed, and given that the vote would need to have been for an actual defined outcome, it would have to be respected.
It is an ENTIRELY different proposition.
Part of me thinks that a second vote in favour of leave is the only way this sorry mess can truly be sorted out. Well, along with a proper cross-party passionate-Brexit negotiating team.
A second vote going in favour of remain causes alienation of a significant part of the electorate, and the Tories have proved too incompetent to sort it out on their own.
The problem is that this assumes that the electorate want to be properly informed rather than just have their original decision respected. Let's face it, at least two thirds of general election votes cast are known before the date, it doesn't matter how competent the parties are, or what they stand for. The difference of course is the fall back that those people can be voted out five years later, but the fact remains that two thirds just trot along to the polling booth again and put their cross by the red/blue candidate regardless. We are up against alienating people with that mindset . It's not right that people behave like that in my view, but that's democracy.
Last edited:
And who decides what the options are on the second referendum? Assuming you don’t want an in/out?
Ideally, me.
a. Remain in the European Union
b. Remain in the European Union, and a free Freddo for everyone.
But realistically, we need to revoke / delay A50, a cross-party committee need to negotiate the best possible deal with the EU (this may be what we have on the table already), and the options need to be that deal, or Remain.
Yes, that's the main problem with a second referendum. If you just have a re-run of the first, you're heading for the same problem but if you include different out options (eg no deal, Norway option, May's deal), we could have the situation where Remain gets 35% but because the Out option splits each way, Remain wins.
That would cause far more problems than it solves.
The only sensible question for a new referendum would be leave with May's deal vs Remain.
"No Deal" is (a) too vague and (b) violates international treaties, so the electoral commission would never allow it in the first place (if it even made it past the Commons, which it wouldn't). May's deal is how it looks to Leave (the future relationship comes later as part of the second phase during the transition period, and Remain is obviously revocation of Article 50. If different parties want to come up with different ideas of what a future relationship looks like then that feels more like an election issue than a referendum one.
"No Deal" is (a) too vague and (b) violates international treaties, so the electoral commission would never allow it in the first place (if it even made it past the Commons, which it wouldn't). May's deal is how it looks to Leave (the future relationship comes later as part of the second phase during the transition period, and Remain is obviously revocation of Article 50. If different parties want to come up with different ideas of what a future relationship looks like then that feels more like an election issue than a referendum one.