Brexit: would you change your vote.

[Ron Maiden]

Ghibli said:

I recall Boris saying that we will have a special close relationship and a bespoke trade deal.

I remember many people saying things that were pure speculation, on both sides.

We were asked to make a choice, Leave or Remain, you know the rest. Lets get on with it instead of spouting
the same old boring lines day in day out, you haven't made a jot of difference to the result so far and that's a lot of
effort you put in here, WOT.

[fouronthefloor]

turbobloke said:

Ghibli said:

gooner1 said:

Ghibli said:

gooner1 said:

Only on the Remain option.

And in the description of what the referendum was for.

So your point is....?

People voted to leave the membership.

I recall Boris saying that we will have a special close relationship and a bespoke trade deal.

Sure but Boris has never been in a position to offer or achieve anything (except additions to the hot air cloud) just like the vast majority of politicians spouting impotently from the sidelines.

The trade deal and special relationship should come after we've left and not be part of the leave negotiations. It's futile trying to negotiate at this stage when neither side wants to show their cards.

[anonymous-user]

Ron Maiden said:

Ghibli said:

I recall Boris saying that we will have a special close relationship and a bespoke trade deal.

I remember many people saying things that were pure speculation, on both sides.

We were asked to make a choice, Leave or Remain, you know the rest. Lets get on with it instead of spouting
the same old boring lines day in day out, you haven't made a jot of difference to the result so far and that's a lot of
effort you put in here, WOT.

Are you saying that people made their decision based on BS?

[turbobloke]

Ghibli said:

Ron Maiden said:

Ghibli said:

I recall Boris saying that we will have a special close relationship and a bespoke trade deal.

I remember many people saying things that were pure speculation, on both sides.

We were asked to make a choice, Leave or Remain, you know the rest. Lets get on with it instead of spouting
the same old boring lines day in day out, you haven't made a jot of difference to the result so far and that's a lot of
effort you put in here, WOT.

Are you saying that people made their decision based on BS?

Lots of BS was being sprayed around by politicians on both sides, though only one side was state sponsored to the rafters. Hopefully people made their own mind up based on whatever level of experience they had of being in the EU, alongside awareness of what the EU stands for and where it's headed based on previous actions not words. Believing what politicians say is a thing of the past surely?

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Lots of BS was being sprayed around by politicians on both sides, though only one side was state sponsored to the rafters. Hopefully people made their own mind up based on whatever level of experience they had of being in the EU, alongside awareness of what the EU stands for and where it's headed based on previous actions not words. Believing what politicians say is a thing of the past surely?

And how do you know what 17million people knew or thought?

They certainly know what Brexit is now. (Either Mays deal or no deal)

[fouronthefloor]

Ghibli said:

turbobloke said:

Lots of BS was being sprayed around by politicians on both sides, though only one side was state sponsored to the rafters. Hopefully people made their own mind up based on whatever level of experience they had of being in the EU, alongside awareness of what the EU stands for and where it's headed based on previous actions not words. Believing what politicians say is a thing of the past surely?

And how do you know what 17million people knew or thought?

They certainly know what Brexit is now. (Either Mays deal or no deal)

Do you believe there should be a second referendum on this basis?

[turbobloke]

Ghibli said:

turbobloke said:

Lots of BS was being sprayed around by politicians on both sides, though only one side was state sponsored to the rafters. Hopefully people made their own mind up based on whatever level of experience they had of being in the EU, alongside awareness of what the EU stands for and where it's headed based on previous actions not words. Believing what politicians say is a thing of the past surely?

And how do you know what 17million people knew or thought?

If I had claimed I knew such things, that part of your post would make an iota of sense (which it currently lacks).

My post mentioned the various levels of awareness and experience people had, it made no claim to know what those levels were or are.

Congratulations on doing a fine job of reading something that wasn't written.

Ghibli said:

They certainly know what Brexit is now. (Either Mays deal or no deal)

They know more now about the process when managed via incompetence and plain silliness from politicians in the UK and EU.

They knew what Brexit was back then, i.e. leaving the EU. Nobody had a working crystal ball so "May's deal" is irrelevant [when looking back. The possibility of no deal was always present.

[anonymous-user]

fouronthefloor said:

Do you believe there should be a second referendum on this basis?

What I don't believe is the BS that people come out with on this forum.

I believe that the referendum was based on BS from all directions. I don't have a say as to whether we have a second referendum and it would be stupid to have a referendum to find out if we should have a second referendum.

[fouronthefloor]

Ghibli said:

fouronthefloor said:

Do you believe there should be a second referendum on this basis?

What I don't believe is the BS that people come out with on this forum.

I believe that the referendum was based on BS from all directions. I don't have a say as to whether we have a second referendum and it would be stupid to have a referendum to find out if we should have a second referendum.

You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?

[anonymous-user]

fouronthefloor said:

You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?

It makes no difference what I think. It's now down to the MPs to make the decisions.

[Ron Maiden]

Ghibli said:

What I don't believe is the BS that people come out with on this forum.

Well why are you typing it day after day then?, you are as responsible for it as anyone else. Go and do something worthwhile with your time
if its so full of BS.

I am, see ya.

[amusingduck]

Ghibli said:

fouronthefloor said:

You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?

It makes no difference what I think. It's now down to the MPs to make the decisions.

I'm glad I was here to witness your last PH post

[Elysium]

gooner1 said:

Elysium said:

gooner1 said:

Elysium said:

It’s really obvious why some people think a second vote makes sense. It’s been covered many times already in this thread.

It’s also really obvious why some people think that view is wrong.

It’s a matter of judgement. I can see the point in discussing the issue, but not when people are simply ignoring what others say.

I think you are well aware that no-one is arguing for repeated votes until they get the answer they want. What is the point in pretending that is the situation - does it make you feel better somehow?

The only thing that's "really obvious" is the only ones still calling for a 2nd referendum
are those not willing to recognise the democratic result of the first one.

Are we supposed to carry this train of thought over to every future GE?

No - because general elections are a process for the selection of our parliamentary representatives and they repeat on a regular basis. So if we are not happy with the actions they take we can vote for someone else - or even stand ourselves.

The referendum is different, because it is a single subject decision and because 2 years later, some people (no one knows how many) feel that the debate has moved on materially and that we should check what ‘the people’ want before committing ourselves to a particular version of Brexit.

But you know that already, so why ask the question?

If we held a referendum every 40 years, that would be a regular thing.

I think we should avoid the referendums and certainly not use them regularly. We elect representatives to make difficult decisions on our behalf and expect them to consider the needs of everyone, including minority interests, when doing so.

Referendums are binary and, in the case of the EU ref, the Govt has positioned itself absolutely with the majority. The minority interest has been left behind and, in our system democracy, that feels pretty unpleasant.

I would not describe a 40 return period as regular. For some people that is a lifetime.

gooner1 said:

You state that the referendum was a single subject decision , then surely it follows that
we should abide by the single decision voted for.
Which, iirc was Leave the EU, was it not?

I agree. In response to the referendum our Govt has pursued Brexit and they have agreed terms with the EU under which we will leave on the 29th Mar 2019.

As you already know, but are pretending not to understand:

1. MP's (including staunch brexiteers) do not like May's deal.
2. People are now talking seriously about 'no-deal', which really means no-plan or Brexit in the stupidest way possible. I believe that most people and most MP's would see 'no-deal' as a failure, by Govt and against the leave voters. On that basis, I think that something needs to and will happen to avoid it.
3. Since the vote, a sizeable group of people (we don't know how many), find that they have greater insight into the issues and potential costs of Brexit than they did at the time of the vote. We also have new information, including confirmation that the leave campaign broke electoral law and the strong suggestion that social media in the run up to the vote was manipulated by a particular group of people, potentially backed by a foreign power.
4. Many people (at least 4 million based on the 2016 petition) felt that the terms of the original vote, with a simple majority required, did not provide a sufficient mandate to justify a step into the unknown if that could greatly damage our nations prosperity.

I am one of the people who thought that the simple majority approach provided a weak mandate for Brexit. However, I have reluctantly accepted that we intend to leave and I did not support a peoples vote when that campaign was launched.

The response from MP's and the public to Mays deal changes that. There is really very little wrong with it, but it has quickly become a political football and the potential of 'no-deal' is being used as a threat to coerce support.

I do not believe we should exit with no-deal, unless we have a robust mandate from the electorate confirming that they still want Brexit on those terms, even if that means the potential for extreme disruption and increased financial hardship.

I think there is plenty of rational, logical thought there. Enough to show that this view is not about 'disrespecting the vote' or 'voting again until we get the right answer'. I expect leavers to disagree, but I think it is absurd for them to pretend they don't understand these arguments.

In fact, I see the question in reverse. In an ideal world, why would we not go back to the people to have them ratify the final terms of our withdrawal from the EU?

I can only see one reason why leave voters dislike this idea. There is a risk that the mood really has changed and that they are no longer in the majority. I understand that risk, but that would be the democratic position.

Arguing that we should not consult the people because it would be undemocratic is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 24th December 10:13

[fouronthefloor]

Ghibli said:

fouronthefloor said:

You seem to have misinterpreted my question. Do you think we should have a referendum based on May's deal or no deal?

It makes no difference what I think. It's now down to the MPs to make the decisions.

It makes a difference what everyone thinks. That's why we vote.
The reason I ask is that almost every post you make, tends to be a question. You then proceed to argue, actively misinterpret and twist what people have said.
I thought I'd ask a plain simple question in the hope that you could put YOUR view forward in a non-confrontational way.
Then everyone knows where you stand without any BS.

[gooner1]

Ghibli said:

gooner1 said:

Ghibli said:

gooner1 said:

Only on the Remain option.

And in the description of what the referendum was for.

So your point is....?

People voted to leave the membership.

I recall Boris saying that we will have a special close relationship and a bespoke trade deal.

Correct the majority voted to leave the EU.

Boris is a politician. Politician's are sometimes mistaken, some even tell lies.
None of this is news, unless you are 7 years old.
The EU denied the very concept of wanting an EU army, did you, or do you now believe that?

[amusingduck]

Elysium said:

I think we should avoid the referendums and certainly not use them regularly. We elect representatives to make difficult decisions on our behalf and expect them to consider the needs of everyone, including minority interests, when doing so.

Referendums are binary and, in the case of the EU ref, the Govt has positioned itself absolutely with the majority. The minority interest has been left behind and, in our system democracy, that feels pretty unpleasant.

You had exactly that. For 40 years. The result was the majority interest being left behind - I presume you didn't find that so unpleasant.

Do you ever consider the other side of the argument before posting? It doesn't seem that you do, IMO. They're presented as principled opinions, but they quickly crumble under mild scrutiny.

[Elysium]

amusingduck said:

Elysium said:

I think we should avoid the referendums and certainly not use them regularly. We elect representatives to make difficult decisions on our behalf and expect them to consider the needs of everyone, including minority interests, when doing so.

Referendums are binary and, in the case of the EU ref, the Govt has positioned itself absolutely with the majority. The minority interest has been left behind and, in our system democracy, that feels pretty unpleasant.

You had exactly that. For 40 years. The result was the majority interest being left behind - I presume you didn't find that so unpleasant.

Do you ever consider the other side of the argument before posting? It doesn't seem that you do, IMO. They're presented as principled opinions, but they quickly crumble under mild scrutiny.

I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.

You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.

You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.

[gooner1]

Elysium said:

I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.

You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.

You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.

The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?
Really?

[B'stard Child]

gooner1 said:

Elysium said:

I believe that a 'first past the post' representative democracy is the best model. Our democracy has evolved over thousands of years, during which time all sorts of people have tried and failed to twist it to their advantage. It is imperfect, but the checks and balances that are built into the system mean that all people have representation.

You are suggesting that the majority interest has been left behind for 40 years, between the referendum on entering the EU and the 2016 referendum on leaving it. You have no evidence base for that. The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago. At some point that shifted in favour of leaving, but we don't know when. We also don't know if that is still the case.

You say that my opinions 'crumble under mild scrutiny'. I assume that means that you simply disagree with them, which is up to you. It does not mean that they are wrong.

The majority wanted to join the EU 40 years ago?
Really?

The inevitable creep from EEC to EU via the treaty of Rome was laid out for all to see - the government of the time chose to dismiss that creep and "market" the continued membership of the EEC (which the people had not voted to join) as a "trade partnership" aka "Common Market" and not the participation in a "political" alignment of Europe

We did not get to vote on continued membership after the "Maastricht" or "Lisbon" treaties which were both continued "creep"

[gooner1]

Elysium said:

I agree. In response to the referendum our Govt has pursued Brexit and they have agreed terms with the EU under which we will leave on the 29th Mar 2019.

As you already know, but are pretending not to understand:

1. MP's (including staunch brexiteers) do not like May's deal.
2. People are now talking seriously about 'no-deal', which really means no-plan or Brexit in the stupidest way possible. I believe that most people and most MP's would see 'no-deal' as a failure, by Govt and against the leave voters. On that basis, I think that something needs to and will happen to avoid it.
3. Since the vote, a sizeable group of people (we don't know how many), find that they have greater insight into the issues and potential costs of Brexit than they did at the time of the vote. We also have new information, including confirmation that the leave campaign broke electoral law and the strong suggestion that social media in the run up to the vote was manipulated by a particular group of people, potentially backed by a foreign power.
4. Many people (at least 4 million based on the 2016 petition) felt that the terms of the original vote, with a simple majority required, did not provide a sufficient mandate to justify a step into the unknown if that could greatly damage our nations prosperity.

I am one of the people who thought that the simple majority approach provided a weak mandate for Brexit. However, I have reluctantly accepted that we intend to leave and I did not support a peoples vote when that campaign was launched.

The response from MP's and the public to Mays deal changes that. There is really very little wrong with it, but it has quickly become a political football and the potential of 'no-deal' is being used as a threat to coerce support.

I do not believe we should exit with no-deal, unless we have a robust mandate from the electorate confirming that they still want Brexit on those terms, even if that means the potential for extreme disruption and increased financial hardship.

I think there is plenty of rational, logical thought there. Enough to show that this view is not about 'disrespecting the vote' or 'voting again until we get the right answer'. I expect leavers to disagree, but I think it is absurd for them to pretend they don't understand these arguments.

In fact, I see the question in reverse. In an ideal world, why would we not go back to the people to have them ratify the final terms of our withdrawal from the EU?

I can only see one reason why leave voters dislike this idea. There is a risk that the mood really has changed and that they are no longer in the majority. I understand that risk, but that would be the democratic position.

Arguing that we should not consult the people because it would be undemocratic is, in my opinion, rank hypocrisy.

Edited by Elysium on Monday 24th December 10:13

To summarise, you think that ignoring a democratically reached decision
to hold another referendum because some people, and you're not sure of the numbers , may have changed their minds, is democrocy?

The rank hypocrisy is all yours, Eliesome.