Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)
Discussion
Greg66 said:
Oh yes, and we will even have Morcombe & Wise on the BBC where they were funny, and Brucie doing the Generation Game on a Saturday evening.
Didn't we do well!
So long as I get the Clangers and Scooby Doo (new series, not repeats) with Helena Bonham Carter playing Daphne......I'll be fine.Didn't we do well!
andymadmak said:
mx5nut said:
andymadmak said:
Be under no illusions though, the Ref2 strategy has but one aim - to over turn the result of the first.
If that's the will of the people then let it be so 
Democracy in action.
andymadmak said:
mx5nut said:
andymadmak said:
Be under no illusions though, the Ref2 strategy has but one aim - to over turn the result of the first.
If that's the will of the people then let it be so Democracy in action.
The people must not be given the opportunity to vote incorrectly, in their eyes.
When even Farage is coming across as less radical than you, it may be time to dial it back a bit
Ghibli said:
It doesn't make sense. If Farage doesn't want referendum he shouldn't be saying he kinda wants one.
The author of article 50 has already said it can be revoked.
He might have done a better job of the drafting. EU legislation is to be interpreted purposively (unlike English legislation which is to be interpreted as it is drafted, i.e. if the draftsman got it wrong, then tough on the government, which is part of the reason our tax laws are so susceptible of circumnavigation), but it's difficult to discern a purpose to Article 50 beyond what it says.The author of article 50 has already said it can be revoked.
Seems some of the people in the ‘remain camp’ are deluding themselves into thinking that a second referendum regarding brexit could be available to the electorate. From my understanding the Government has no such intention of a second referendum.
Given that it is commonly considered that the ‘leave camp’ consisted of the lower educated amongst the electorate, why is it thought that these same people could now understand the consequences of leaving the eu and therefore place a ‘meaningful vote’?
Given that it is commonly considered that the ‘leave camp’ consisted of the lower educated amongst the electorate, why is it thought that these same people could now understand the consequences of leaving the eu and therefore place a ‘meaningful vote’?
andymadmak said:
Ghibli said:
I assume remain will be saying that we will be staying in the EU and things will remain as they already are. I am curious as to what leave will be offering. Obviously the bespoke trade deal with the EU will be off the cards along with extra for the NHS. Will it be based on special trade deals with the rest of the world and sovereignty?
This is a good question, and one that I think we can really debate sensibly if we try! I'll start with a quick and dirty response if I may: For Team Remain to win, I think they have to offer a vision for a future EU that is different to what people believe will be the case currently. Saying that things will stay as they are is neither credible nor accurate. People know that because that, if anything, the past 18 months has shown that not only does the EU not want to change, but if anything key elements within it are still ardent supporters of the "ever closer union" mantra.
I was on the fence in REF1 until quite later on, but to get me to shift to Remain I would have to be confident that the inexorable creep towards an EU superstate was going to stop, and that some loosening of structures was likely to be possible so that Southern Europe can have a chance to recover. There are other things I would want to see changed too, such as a fundamental revision of the CAP, a change to FOM rules, and a decentralisation of power. Is any of that possible? I don't know, but without clear commitments to those things combined with a reasonable expectation that they would be pursued diligently by HMG and with a reasonable expectation of success then i would not be switching sides .
Of course, as an alternative Remain could go down the ProjectFear2 route. PF2 would rely on building on the uncertainties brought forward during the past 18 months. For this to be successful though, PF2 would have to acknowledge that PF1 was also, at least in part, rather riddled with lies, exaggerations and inaccuracies. As another poster has already pointed out, PF2 combined with a s
tty trade deal on offer could actually make the voters MORE inclined to say "stuff it" to the EU. I certainly would. The temptation to go with PF2 for the Remain camp will be strong. It would be interesting to see if Team Remain could maintain unity on this. For Team Brexit to win, they would need to be able answer clearly many of the points raised by Remain regarding future trade, the costs of WTO and it's likely effects on the man in the street. Right now, there are a number of good news stories that support Brexit - manufacturing levels at record highs, low and falling unemployment. Even inflation is not horrible... and right now the Team with their economic credibility largely still intact is Brexit, because most of the predictions from PF1 (real or perceived by voters) have failed to materialise.
Brexits problem is that it is not the policy of a credible political party (UKIP does not count) nor is it really supported by the current Government. As such Brexit has neither the resources to prepare the information likely to be required, nor does it have any authority to be able to say "if we win this is what we will do as a Government"
As per the first time, Brexit starts with one big advantage - (not Farage) the inherent cynicism and common sense of the British public. Rightly or wrongly, the balance of that opinion right now sits on the side of Brexit. For Brexit therefore to win it just has to allay fears, stay calm, not indulge in PF2 of its own. Avoid the bear traps and generally let Remain froth itself to exhausted failure.
More when I have time..
Edited cos I wrote Remain when I should have written Brexit at a key point
Edited by andymadmak on Friday 12th January 10:48
I'm a mild leaver, voting so because I think the financial structure of the EU means the South cannot recover, and will at some point fairly soon, fall over in a big way, taking us with it.
For me to vote Remain (which isn't off the table) I'd need to be persuaded that Italy, Spain, Greece and Portugal have a route back to 'life', and that their unemployed generation won't remain so.
That's a big ask, and I don't think there's a plan, beyond pushing the problem beyond the retirement date of whoever's desk it currently sits on.
mx5nut said:
It's a point that's made far too often. PH Leavers only respect democracy and support the "will of the people" if it means they get their own way.
The people must not be given the opportunity to vote incorrectly, in their eyes.
When even Farage is coming across as less radical than you, it may be time to dial it back a bit
OK, so you don't understand the point that was being made. never mindThe people must not be given the opportunity to vote incorrectly, in their eyes.
When even Farage is coming across as less radical than you, it may be time to dial it back a bit
Funkycoldribena said:
Shall we just keep having referendums then?
How often? You and others seem to want them every year or so by the look of it.
Unless you are happy to live in an Authoritarian State then yes, Democracy by definition means that if a majority want something to be offered, then it is our Government's duty to provide it. How often? You and others seem to want them every year or so by the look of it.
It would be wrong for a Government to offer Referendums repeatedly if there was clearly insufficient appetite by the General Public. Such a scenario would be evident by a clear majority followed by relatively minor campaigns for another.
It is beyond dispute that the Referendum for Brexit was close. It is also beyond dispute that 18 months after the fact, there is a loud voice for a 2nd. If - if the Government believes that this voice is sufficiently loud so as to reflect a possible change in opinion - or a call for a ratification of the earlier vote - then it is obligated to deliver upon the wishes of its People.
It's what living in a Democracy is all about.
Referendums are not obligated to be a once in a Lifetime event. They are not subject to the same Term rules as Elections. They are called as and when a majority feel it is required.
If you believe people are not allowed to change their opinion, then a model such as Turkey's so-called Democracy or perhaps North Korea's Dictatorship would suit?
Personally, you'll be happy to hear, I may not vote in a 2nd Referendum. I would have to think about it. I have moved on from the UK and so I have far less vested interest in the outcome. I do however, retain a position as a UK Citizen to express my own views on the subject for the matter of debate; out of curiosity of how the country conducts itself.
If I did vote again, I'd do so just to avoid the daft Blue Passports!
Ghibli said:
Now that we have Nige Kinda maybe asking for another referendum it's got me wondering what each side will be offering if it goes ahead.
I assume remain will be saying that we will be staying in the EU and things will remain as they already are. I am curious as to what leave will be offering. Obviously the bespoke trade deal with the EU will be off the cards along with extra for the NHS. Will it be based on special trade deals with the rest of the world and sovereignty?
Surely, Remain would have to come up with something better than "let's just stay the same". Remaining in the EU now is a different proposal than was on offer last time. The EU has, for example, really got the ball rolling on the EU army.I assume remain will be saying that we will be staying in the EU and things will remain as they already are. I am curious as to what leave will be offering. Obviously the bespoke trade deal with the EU will be off the cards along with extra for the NHS. Will it be based on special trade deals with the rest of the world and sovereignty?
I think their best chance would be to run a campaign focused on reform, with the EU fully on board and no way for them to wriggle out of it afterwards. This seems rather unlikely IMO.
Coolbanana said:
Unless you are happy to live in an Authoritarian State then yes, Democracy by definition means that if a majority want something to be offered, then it is our Government's duty to provide it.
No. It's our government's duty to deliver on the manifesto promises they made when they were elected. Democracy means that we can vote for a different government in a few years time, and the various parties can choose what subjects they campaign on.Democracy does not mean "things the public think are a good idea" should be implemented immediately by our government. That's mob rule.
Right now, people think that doubling the number of NHS beds would be a good idea. There are a lot of reasons why that's not going to happen, some of them quite good reasons.
As regards Brexit, if Labour or the Conservatives believe that reversing Brexit is what the majority of people desire, they are able to campaign on it. If they think a second referendum is what the majority of people desire, they can campaign on that.
Coolbanana said:
It is beyond dispute that the Referendum for Brexit was close. It is also beyond dispute that 18 months after the fact, there is a loud voice for a 2nd. If - if the Government believes that this voice is sufficiently loud so as to reflect a possible change in opinion - or a call for a ratification of the earlier vote - then it is obligated to deliver upon the wishes of its People.
This needs enumerating. Without direct regard to Brexit particularly, though of course it applies, there will ALWAYS be demand for a repeat from the defeated side of ANY referendum.And if they get that repeat, and win, then there will be demand from the former winners latter losers for another repeat.
And so on.
So at what point (numerically) does the grieving of the defeated side become a legitimate demand for a re-run. You'd have to have a high bar for this, or we'd never call anything 'decided'.
Coolbanana said:
Unless you are happy to live in an Authoritarian State then yes, Democracy by definition means that if a majority want something to be offered, then it is our Government's duty to provide it.
It would be wrong for a Government to offer Referendums repeatedly if there was clearly insufficient appetite by the General Public. Such a scenario would be evident by a clear majority followed by relatively minor campaigns for another.
It is beyond dispute that the Referendum for Brexit was close. It is also beyond dispute that 18 months after the fact, there is a loud voice for a 2nd. If - if the Government believes that this voice is sufficiently loud so as to reflect a possible change in opinion - or a call for a ratification of the earlier vote - then it is obligated to deliver upon the wishes of its People.
It's what living in a Democracy is all about.
Referendums are not obligated to be a once in a Lifetime event. They are not subject to the same Term rules as Elections. They are called as and when a majority feel it is required.
If you believe people are not allowed to change their opinion, then a model such as Turkey's so-called Democracy or perhaps North Korea's Dictatorship would suit?
Personally, you'll be happy to hear, I may not vote in a 2nd Referendum. I would have to think about it. I have moved on from the UK and so I have far less vested interest in the outcome. I do however, retain a position as a UK Citizen to express my own views on the subject for the matter of debate; out of curiosity of how the country conducts itself.
If I did vote again, I'd do so just to avoid the daft Blue Passports!
So let's say there's a second referendum next year and remain win,if us leavers kick up enough fuss,can we have another?It would be wrong for a Government to offer Referendums repeatedly if there was clearly insufficient appetite by the General Public. Such a scenario would be evident by a clear majority followed by relatively minor campaigns for another.
It is beyond dispute that the Referendum for Brexit was close. It is also beyond dispute that 18 months after the fact, there is a loud voice for a 2nd. If - if the Government believes that this voice is sufficiently loud so as to reflect a possible change in opinion - or a call for a ratification of the earlier vote - then it is obligated to deliver upon the wishes of its People.
It's what living in a Democracy is all about.
Referendums are not obligated to be a once in a Lifetime event. They are not subject to the same Term rules as Elections. They are called as and when a majority feel it is required.
If you believe people are not allowed to change their opinion, then a model such as Turkey's so-called Democracy or perhaps North Korea's Dictatorship would suit?
Personally, you'll be happy to hear, I may not vote in a 2nd Referendum. I would have to think about it. I have moved on from the UK and so I have far less vested interest in the outcome. I do however, retain a position as a UK Citizen to express my own views on the subject for the matter of debate; out of curiosity of how the country conducts itself.
If I did vote again, I'd do so just to avoid the daft Blue Passports!
See the problem? How are you defining 'appetite'? I'd say there was appetite for a vote in the last 20+ years.
Seeing we never had a referendum for forty years,I'd say that length of time should be a starting point.
Funkycoldribena said:
So let's say there's a second referendum next year and remain win,if us leavers kick up enough fuss,can we have another?
See the problem? How are you defining 'appetite'? I'd say there was appetite for a vote in the last 20+ years.
Seeing we never had a referendum for forty years,I'd say that length of time should be a starting point.
Best of three?See the problem? How are you defining 'appetite'? I'd say there was appetite for a vote in the last 20+ years.
Seeing we never had a referendum for forty years,I'd say that length of time should be a starting point.
PurpleMoonlight said:
Funkycoldribena said:
So let's say there's a second referendum next year and remain win,if us leavers kick up enough fuss,can we have another?
See the problem? How are you defining 'appetite'? I'd say there was appetite for a vote in the last 20+ years.
Seeing we never had a referendum for forty years,I'd say that length of time should be a starting point.
Best of three?See the problem? How are you defining 'appetite'? I'd say there was appetite for a vote in the last 20+ years.
Seeing we never had a referendum for forty years,I'd say that length of time should be a starting point.
Funkycoldribena said:
mx5nut said:
If that's the will of the people then let it be so
Democracy in action.
Shall we just keep having referendums then?Democracy in action.
How often? You and others seem to want them every year or so by the look of it.
You and others seem to think that democracy is a one time thing by the look of it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff