Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

dfen5 said:

The watering down has begun in earnest. No need for a second referendum, Brexit's finished before it started.

And if that happened it would see the destruction of any political party that supported this, going against the Democratic process is not a clever thing to do.

And if the "democratic process" gives a course which is even less clever?

ETA; having watched the car crash develop since the vote, my prediction for the future is this.

We will not Brexit. A deal will be done. We will get something better than we have now but something that isn't Brexit. A huge proportion of the population will be pissed off. Like now, but it will be a different constituted huge proportion. On the way to this so-called result we will additionally suffer huge damage to the economy, the best of which will take years to repair and the worst of which will be irreparable.

Edited by anonymous-user on Sunday 26th June 23:45

[cardigankid]

Robertj21a said:

I like what you say. I agree with much of what you say. However, a valid referendum was held so that everyone entitled to vote would have an equal say on how we should progress. Just because many don't like the result is no reason to go back on a referendum that met all the legal criteria.

No, I totally agree, it would be a subversion of democracy of exactly the sort everyone accuses the EU of. However, as Boris, Michael, George G, Nigel & co say, we are not turning our backs on Europe. We have to negotiate a deal and inevitably it would be best to have a closeness to Europe, though we won't be a member. I know that the EU is not perfect. If Tusk, Juncker or even Merkel had shown a grain of respect for the British electorate in their public statements, I don't think that we would be here. The EU has a big problem and I hope that it can sort itself out.

[405dogvan]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well 55% of Scots voted to stay in the UK and guess what, they got to stay in the UK. And about 65% of people voted to stay in the Common Market in the 70s and we stayed.

So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

Point is that most Govts are elected with maybe 25-30% of votes at best - and then implement maybe that sort of percentage of their promises (with about that level of enthusiasm)

The 70s EU ref. was a rubber stamp for what they were doing anyway - the Scottish Ref was a 'nothing changes' - so this is a first in terms of basically asking for something neither Govt nor opposition had as a policy!?

This is pretty much unique in modern politics and I struggle to imagine what you had to do in earlier days for this level of change (chop-off someone's head/steal their castle/blow-up Parliament?)

Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 27th June 00:38

[405dogvan]

sidicks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

sidicks said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Leaving the EU will probably fk up the economy, but uncertainty and delay definitely will. We need to trigger article 50 tomorrow and get out as soon as possible. That we we have a remote hope for the future. But every day of delay is another nail in our economic coffin.

Rubbish, we need to properly consider the possibilities through negotiation.

And those negotiations should start tomorrow.

Yes, agreed. But that's nothing to do with Article 50.

A serious 'Leave' supporter would want someone invested in the process to carry it out surely - not just anyone - not a 'Remain' Supporter surely?

Cameron lost the vote and stepped-aside, 'Leave' Tories(*) must now attempt to take-over and move forward with their amazing plan they never bothered telling anyone - and take responsibility for it too.

That takes time - thems the rules - and there's no timescale (or indeed obligation) to following up the referendum vote.

If a delay is such a problem, maybe people should have considered that (and a million other things further away than their nose) before voting Leave??

You guys shat the bed - you get to lie in it until your campaigns clean it up...

(*) it seems wise a 'Leave' person is in charge - but it's not, obviously, mandatory - indeed 'Remain' contenders could stand just to slowdown/subvert the process I guess?

Edited by 405dogvan on Monday 27th June 00:49

[s2art]

kurt535 said:

PRTVR said:

dfen5 said:

The watering down has begun in earnest. No need for a second referendum, Brexit's finished before it started.

And if that happened it would see the destruction of any political party that supported this, going against the Democratic process is not a clever thing to do.

Sorry sir it is the right thing to do when the nation faces such grave economic instability.

We now have a country at political civil war, likely to get worse in the coming weeks.

This is drama queen stuff. Labour has had a problem ever since Corbyn was elected leader, nothing to do with Brexit. The Tories will sort themselves out in the coming weeks, just as they did when Thatcher resigned. Civil war my arse, this is just politics playing itself out.

[eharding]

s2art said:

The Tories will sort themselves out in the coming weeks, just as they did when Thatcher resigned.

...what, and appoint a confirmed europhile like John Major as leader?

[s2art]

eharding said:

s2art said:

The Tories will sort themselves out in the coming weeks, just as they did when Thatcher resigned.

...what, and appoint a confirmed europhile like John Major as leader?

Dont think that would work, and I think they know it. It will be Boris. (a sort of europhile)

[eharding]

s2art said:

eharding said:

s2art said:

The Tories will sort themselves out in the coming weeks, just as they did when Thatcher resigned.

...what, and appoint a confirmed europhile like John Major as leader?

Dont think that would work, and I think they know it. It will be Boris. (a sort of europhile)

Define "they". As a paid-up party member, how would you recommend I vote?

[PRTVR]

Greg66 said:

PRTVR said:

dfen5 said:

The watering down has begun in earnest. No need for a second referendum, Brexit's finished before it started.

And if that happened it would see the destruction of any political party that supported this, going against the Democratic process is not a clever thing to do.

And if the "democratic process" gives a course which is even less clever?

ETA; having watched the car crash develop since the vote, my prediction for the future is this.

We will not Brexit. A deal will be done. We will get something better than we have now but something that isn't Brexit. A huge proportion of the population will be pissed off. Like now, but it will be a different constituted huge proportion. On the way to this so-called result we will additionally suffer huge damage to the economy, the best of which will take years to repair and the worst of which will be irreparable.

Edited by Greg66 on Sunday 26th June 23:45

So you are saying democracy should be ignored, just tell people yes we know you voted for out but we know better, yes I can see that working with the majority of the population who voted for out, especially when part of the problem was that people feel that politicians do not listen to them,
I do agree that what will be attempted by the political elite, I said before that that Hotel California by the eagles summed it up well with the line you can check out but you can never leave, I just think it will cause massive anger in the country, but unlike the anger with the remain camp this will be against the establishment destroying democracy, that is a far more important point.

[RizzoTheRat]

PRTVR said:

So you are saying democracy should be ignored, just tell people yes we know you voted for out but we know better, yes I can see that working with the majority of the population who voted for out, especially when part of the problem was that people feel that politicians do not listen to them,
I do agree that what will be attempted by the political elite, I said before that that Hotel California by the eagles summed it up well with the line you can check out but you can never leave, I just think it will cause massive anger in the country, but unlike the anger with the remain camp this will be against the establishment destroying democracy, that is a far more important point.

While it's a key point that the referendum was to gauge public opinion rather than as legal requirement to do what the vote said, I agree. I think the only way anyone could legitimately work a way to not leave Europe would be to have a general election before declaring article 50, and hopefully have all parties come up with a bit more of a plan by that point.

[anonymous-user]

PRTVR said:

So you are saying democracy should be ignored

All I'm saying is what I think *will* happen.

It may be done without a second vote of any kind, which I agree would be bad all round. Or it may be done via a second GE or a second referendum.

[tarnished]

405dogvan said:

sidicks said:

Yes, agreed. But that's nothing to do with Article 50.

A serious 'Leave' supporter would want someone invested in the process to carry it out surely - not just anyone - not a 'Remain' Supporter surely?

Why? Cameron said he'd trigger Article 50, that was part of my consideration in voting. I don't actually care who is the figurehead for the civil servants involved so long as Article 50 is triggered asap. It gives us 2 years, that's all we should need, any more is increased uncertainty.

[Mojooo]

Not triggering Article 50 and making this drag on is going to cause all sorts of problem IMO - not least making it far more likely that MPs will find a way of not leaving the EU at all.

[anonymous-user]

Master stroke by Cameron
Delaying article 50 is a smart move as it gives us a post apocalypse vision.
The Brexit lack of a plan is also apparent .
So the Conservative leadership election is referendum 2.
I can't see Botis winning that.

[speedy_thrills]

Jimboka said:

Master stroke by Cameron
Delaying article 50 is a smart move as it gives us a post apocalypse vision.
The Brexit lack of a plan is also apparent .
So the Conservative leadership election is referendum 2.
I can't see Botis winning that.

I think Boris is trying to U-turn actually:
"Boris Johnson says the UK will continue to "intensify" co-operation with the EU following the country's vote to leave. The leading pro-Leave campaigner said exit supporters must accept the 52-48 result was "not entirely overwhelming."

In which case why not keep Cameron if they are going to come to approximate the same view now?

[mike74]

If remain had won the referendum and it was now the leavers that had set up this petition I can only imagine the level of bile hatred and intolerance that would have been spewing from the remain camp about the thick racists and their failure to accept a democratic process.

[p1stonhead]

Greg66 said:

PRTVR said:

dfen5 said:

The watering down has begun in earnest. No need for a second referendum, Brexit's finished before it started.

And if that happened it would see the destruction of any political party that supported this, going against the Democratic process is not a clever thing to do.

And if the "democratic process" gives a course which is even less clever?

ETA; having watched the car crash develop since the vote, my prediction for the future is this.

We will not Brexit. A deal will be done. We will get something better than we have now but something that isn't Brexit. A huge proportion of the population will be pissed off. Like now, but it will be a different constituted huge proportion. On the way to this so-called result we will additionally suffer huge damage to the economy, the best of which will take years to repair and the worst of which will be irreparable.

Edited by Greg66 on Sunday 26th June 23:45

I agree 100%.

This will drift and drift until some agreements are made. They wont be a full exit.

Boris isnt fully comitted to this process. He is already talking about cooperation with the EU going forwards. And Cameron may be in power until October and by then there will be even more uncertainty.

Mark my words. This wont actually end up happening.

The government would rather ps off the 52% that want to leave than the 48% who dont (and who they agree with themselves). Its ridiculous, but id put a good amount of money on it going this way.

Edited by p1stonhead on Monday 27th June 07:14

[Graemsay]

I made the point earlier that the Referendum didn't have a huge majority. Boris is of a similar mind, when he described the Leave vote as "not entirely overwhelming."

Mothersruin asked me what I thought would be a fair margin of victory. I'm not sure of the answer to that question, but I'd argue that the bigger the win, the stronger the mandate. Had Leave got 70% or 80% of the vote, then I suspect that there wouldn't be such vocal complaints from the Remainers.

AJS- and paulrockcliffe argued that the mandate was sufficient for an immediate exit from the EU, and that Remain wouldn't compromise. I think that the problem with Brexit is that it's a fairly binary decision, and there are really three choices:

• Remain in the EU as we currently are.
• Leave the EU and join the EFTA.
• Leave entirely, and negotiate trade deals with the EU on a bilateral basis.

I'm going to discount the Swiss option of being in the EEA with bilateral agreements, as the EU seems to be getting annoyed with them cherry-picking legislation as suits. There's a piece at the NY Times that covers some of the tensions there.

Becoming an EFTA member might work as a compromise between some of the Brexit camp, and the Remainers. But it's going to result in ongoing payments to the EU, and freedom of movement, which were the two main issues that Leave campaigned on. It would also put the UK in a worse position of being subject to European laws and regulations without having a say on them.

In the Scottish Independence Referendum there was a potential third option of Devo Max. That might have kept moderates on both sides happy, the hardcore supporters will always demand more.

We don't have a consistent vision of what Leave actually entails. I suspect Boris has a significantly different plan from Nigel. The other issue is what sort of deal could a post-Brexit UK extract from the EU?

There are a lot of ifs going around, but no real substance. There's likely to be a general election, and possibly another referendum before the matter's settled.

[PositronicRay]

I firmly believe we'll end up where we were, with a couple of reforms and a bloody nose.

This is what remain were campaigning for (but without the bloody nose)

[4x4Tyke]

[quote=AverageLeaveChump]
but democracy, et. al.
[quote]

The petition and or a general election are democratic; shouting the same claim repeatedly about this process being undemocratic doesn't make it true it is just ignorant.

If you want to convince remain people of the rigorousness of Brexit argument, then permit those Leave supporters that can raise a disagreement without resorting to abuse handle this or learn to be civil.