Yup, there is so much ‘nothing will change’ or ‘they need us’ nonsense with realising that the EU is basically a series of legal treaties that they can’t just ignore cos we’re Great Britain.
Having another referendum, but changing the terms of the referendum so that one side can’t win will not subdue the ‘will of the people’ rhetoric.
I’m sorry, but you just sound like you think that there are degrees of democracy that can be attained depending on how ‘enlightened’ a voter is.
It’s more destructive than the/a government deciding that Brexit shouldn’t go ahead. You can make a case for that, especially after the inevitable course of negotiations has been run, but holding - and effectively rigging - another referendum will be an utter disaster.
So you agree the referendum should have been done correctly* but we can’t do it correctly the 2nd time cos it was done incorrectly the first time?
If remain won if would show the ‘will of the people’ has changed or at least stop it being used by MPs as a reason not to challenge brexit.
I’m not sure which bit your second para is referring to but for referendums (and democracy) to work the electorate needs to be informed.
But we’re talking about letting people having an informed choice after the inevitable course of negotiations has been run.
There’s a choice between
A) stopping brexit
B) complete collapse of economy, loss of jobs, food/medicine shortages, austerity +++, removal of rights and fascism.
I choose A and think B needs to be avoided at all costs and that to be achieved however possible.
(Quote not working here)
*‘I’m not saying that the Brexit referendum shouldn’t have followed those rules’
My issue with this is that if you change the rules, you won’t show this, nor stop MPs (who often have a dubious grip on how to properly interpret things) from repeating the mantra.
As I said above, if your aim is purely to stop Brexit, then it’s probably a sound approach. I don’t think it would even come close to achieving what you suggest here though.
2/3rds of the country do not want a 2nd vote https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/03/29/where-britain-stands-brexit-one-year-out/
Yeah I did consider that and it’s annoying and would be used by the hardcore brexiteers but I think if you’re going to have a ref you should di it properly. But mainly it’s for the MPs who seem to feel they can’t possibly go against brexit. I’ve seen so many letters written by them mentioning the will of the people and referendum result. A second ref would certainly help them with not having to go along with something they most likely don’t think is a good idea.
- there shouldn’t have been a referendum in the first place
- it should have been explicit about the choices in that referendum
- it should have been explicit about whether it was binding on the government, and future governments, or not.
- it should have established a threshold for victory, and for the conditions in which revisiting the referendum in the event of a close margin
None of those happened. I just think it’s rank arrogance to demand another referendum under new terms AND make the position that has been in place for three years be the one that requires a 66% trigger to proceed.
It will not stop Brexit. At the very best it will postpone it for five years.
It more the fact that you’re deciding that your side needs half the number of voters as the other to win.
Hell, I don’t want a second vote. I want brexit stopped but if that’s how we have to do it…
*bangs head on desk *
I’d imagine that a similar amount didn’t want the first
An in/out referendum was a fringe idea taken up by an idiot party leader and ripped from his hands by another idiot party leader to put down dissent among his back-benchers in order to scrape through an election
Now we’re (the UK as a whole, the Irish border, EU citizens in the UK, UK citizens in the EU, the EU as a whole, business & trade) all being held hostage to the snowballing cacophony of ineptitude that’s come in its wake (yeah, double metaphor so what)
Let’s never, EVER forget that
At present, there is no appetite for a 2nd vote and no indication that a 2nd vote would yield a different result.
I get the frustration but calling for a 2nd vote NOW but you’d be better off waiting to see if something in the landscape changes which makes it desirable and necessary. I can’t see it happening.
I think a 2nd ref would win without a super majority actually. So long as ‘your side’ don’t vote with the fascists/far right. But if you’re going to do something might as well do it correctly.
Perhaps. Although 50% of the electorate in 2015 voted for parties that promised one.
How are you determining the position that needs 66% here?
Why is is not the one requesting the overturning of the first referendum and overturning of parliamentary acts and discarding three years of negotiations?
Yeah - a ‘people’s vote’ is not gonna happen unless Parliament manage somehow to wrestle the final say on an eventual deal away from Government and present it to the public in some form of straight choices. Sorry @NickDS you can’t have a different kind of vote. If there is one it would have to be
- Hard Brexit (No deal)
- Current Deal (whatever that is - EEA or similar)
And even then not one of those options could be guaranteed to come out on top
This poisoned genie is unlikely to get back in its bottle
The LibDems and Greens advocated an in/out referendum too.
Not because of it though, no way
Doesn’t alter anything I said
Yeah I can’t find any polling on it atm but there must have been some from 5 years or so ago at least. Although I can descend into anecdote and imagine there were a fair few people like my old man - banged on about how we needed a referendum on the EU (he even voted for Goldsmith’s Referendum Party in 2001!) for years. Said he’d have voted Labour in 2015 if they’d have had one in the manifesto. Then the referendum rolls round and he votes Remain anyway. Nice one.