Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[Nothingtoseehere]

rs1952 said:

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

40 years then.
Seems fair.

[Stickyfinger]

Nothingtoseehere said:

rs1952 said:

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

40 years then.
Seems fair.

OK......we will need time to settle into our freedom so that seems about right.

[amgmcqueen]

rs1952 said:

Deptford Draylons said:

amgmcqueen said:

One of the chuckle brothers isn't happy....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dav...

Another one who wants to rerun the referendum in the hope of getting the result he wanted. I guess at least he and ///ajd are at least open in not giving a toss about having any respect for a referendum outcome.

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

No we didn't, the EU didn't even exist until 1993.

Wait at least 40years then get back to us!

[CaptainSlow]

Nothingtoseehere said:

40 years then.
Seems fair.

Sounds about right, time for the "You've stolen our future" Youth to turn into "Racist Bigots".

[FiF]

Stickyfinger said:

Nothingtoseehere said:

rs1952 said:

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

40 years then.
Seems fair.

OK......we will need time to settle into our freedom so that seems about right.

Well in 1975 I voted for out. For 30 years I accepted the result and STFU to get on with life, somehow suspect that won't be the case this time.

Incidentally that name for the Milibands is an insult to the real Chuckle brothers.

[alfie2244]

amgmcqueen said:

rs1952 said:

Deptford Draylons said:

amgmcqueen said:

One of the chuckle brothers isn't happy....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dav...

Another one who wants to rerun the referendum in the hope of getting the result he wanted. I guess at least he and ///ajd are at least open in not giving a toss about having any respect for a referendum outcome.

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

No we didn't, the EU didn't even exist until 1993.

Wait at least 40years then get back to us!

To be fair he did say "what became the EU"...hence we never had a vote on the EU but voted to stay in what we thought we were a member of, and that was not the EU which it subsequently evolved into....so this is the 1st ever vote on our position within the EU and we voted to leave it.... but fairs fair I am personally happy to have another vote on possibly rejoining in 40 yrs time...assuming it still exists.

Edited by alfie2244 on Sunday 13th August 20:30

[rs1952]

alfie2244 said:

To be fair he did say "what became the EU"...hence we never had a vote on the EU but voted to stay in what we thought we were a member of, and that was not the EU which it subsequently evolved into....so this is the 1st ever vote on our position within the EU and we voted to leave it.... but fairs fair I am personally happy to have another vote on possibly rejoining in 40 yrs time...assuming it still exists.

No - that's no good.

I always said that I wanted to live to 102 and then be shot by a jealous husband.

40 years after last year's referendum will make me 104.

I'll just have to make sure he doesn't find out for a couple of years longer, I suppose...

[don'tbesilly]

rs1952 said:

Deptford Draylons said:

amgmcqueen said:

One of the chuckle brothers isn't happy....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dav...

Another one who wants to rerun the referendum in the hope of getting the result he wanted. I guess at least he and ///ajd are at least open in not giving a toss about having any respect for a referendum outcome.

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

Using your logic and maths, you'll have forgotten all about Brexit, and at 107 years of age you'll struggle to get a carer to agree to take you out

Vince Cable might be your carer though

[alfie2244]

rs1952 said:

alfie2244 said:

To be fair he did say "what became the EU"...hence we never had a vote on the EU but voted to stay in what we thought we were a member of, and that was not the EU which it subsequently evolved into....so this is the 1st ever vote on our position within the EU and we voted to leave it.... but fairs fair I am personally happy to have another vote on possibly rejoining in 40 yrs time...assuming it still exists.

No - that's no good.

I always said that I wanted to live to 102 and then be shot by a jealous husband.

40 years after last year's referendum will make me 104.

I'll just have to make sure he doesn't find out for a couple of years longer, I suppose...

Keep taking the little blue pills.

[rs1952]

FiF said:

Well in 1975 I voted for out. For 30 years I accepted the result and STFU to get on with life, somehow suspect that won't be the case this time.

Incidentally that name for the Milibands is an insult to the real Chuckle brothers.

Well you may well have shut up after backing the losing side in 1975, but many others didn't - Enoch Powell, Teddy Taylor, Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman spring immediately to mind.

I will also pose the question - do you think the likes of His Nigeness and Rees Mogg would have STFU if the result had been 52/48 the other way?

It is therefore hardly surprising that some who backed the losing side in 2016 are going to keep banging on about it - probably ad infinitum, like Taylor, Cash and Gorman used to.

Or did they have a democratic right to do so whilst the "remoaners" don't?

[alfie2244]

rs1952 said:

It is therefore hardly surprising that some who backed the losing side in 2016 are going to keep banging on about it - probably ad infinitum, like Taylor, Cash and Gorman used to.

I doubt 90% of the electorate had ever heard of them let alone heard them moaning as infinitum about an EEC vote 40 yrs ago.

Edited by alfie2244 on Sunday 13th August 21:06

[Deptford Draylons]

rs1952 said:

Deptford Draylons said:

amgmcqueen said:

One of the chuckle brothers isn't happy....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/dav...

Another one who wants to rerun the referendum in the hope of getting the result he wanted. I guess at least he and ///ajd are at least open in not giving a toss about having any respect for a referendum outcome.

Well - taking that to a logical conclusion perhaps you can tell us how long a referendum vote stands as being "the will of the people"

After all, we had a referendum on what became the EU in 1975 and we voted to stay in. I voted to stay in.

Apparently, nobody now gives a flying fk about my democratic decision back then, and the rest of the 60+% who voted that way.

It logically therefore follows that referendum results do not stand for all eternity.

So how long do you think it ought to stand? Because the day after I'll be out campaigning again, along with a "chuckle brother," apparently...

You have rather come at it saying your vote when I was 1 year old settled it, and that it seems a bit off asking the people again under greatly changed circumstances since the first. I'd say given the changes it was right to revisit the referendum and put it to the people again after 40 years.

How long until another ? Not sure. How about at least waiting until we've actually left first before trying to undo the result ? Look at people like ///ajd on here and he even thinks that is too long. What we have at the moment is the equivalent of a lot of people moaning 2 mins after the result of a general election has been announced and people wanting to vote again to correct the result to what they want. That's rather pathetic.

So once we've actually fully left including any transition period, how about seeing if EU love translates into the proposed new party and they slowly build up votes like Ukip did on the single issue.
I suspect this won't happen because people just can't be arsed, even more so given the LibDems did basically this and saw their vote share go down. Odd given that leaving is meant to be the ultimate disaster waiting to happen, yet the same people pushing that line didn't vote for them.
The same people wanting to vote to remain in any second referendum seem to just expect a vote to be given to them by not actually voting for a party that wants to do this. Very odd.

[Coolbanana]

Deptford Draylons said:

What we have at the moment is the equivalent of a lot of people moaning 2 mins after the result of a general election has been announced and people wanting to vote again to correct the result to what they want. That's rather pathetic.

Nonsense.

Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.

The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.

As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.

No excuses!

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

That's how it works, folks!

[FiF]

Deptford Draylons said:

You have rather come at it saying your vote when I was 1 year old settled it, and that it seems a bit off asking the people again under greatly changed circumstances since the first. I'd say given the changes it was right to revisit the referendum and put it to the people again after 40 years.

How long until another ? Not sure. How about at least waiting until we've actually left first before trying to undo the result ? Look at people like ///ajd on here and he even thinks that is too long. What we have at the moment is the equivalent of a lot of people moaning 2 mins after the result of a general election has been announced and people wanting to vote again to correct the result to what they want. That's rather pathetic.

So once we've actually fully left including any transition period, how about seeing if EU love translates into the proposed new party and they slowly build up votes like Ukip did on the single issue.
I suspect this won't happen because people just can't be arsed, even more so given the LibDems did basically this and saw their vote share go down. Odd given that leaving is meant to be the ultimate disaster waiting to happen, yet the same people pushing that line didn't vote for them.
The same people wanting to vote to remain in any second referendum seem to just expect a vote to be given to them by not actually voting for a party that wants to do this. Very odd.

Let's face it, even Tony Blair used to say that the case for EU membership should be it to the people once every generation.

Mind you that was probably under the same view as Cameron et al that the correct answer from his viewpoint would be the result. Now that it wasn't he's just like the other with selective memories.

[confused_buyer]

rs1952 said:

Well you may well have shut up after backing the losing side in 1975, but many others didn't - Enoch Powell, Teddy Taylor, Bill Cash and Teresa Gorman spring immediately to mind.

In fairness to those people they spent very little time banging on about actually leaving the EEC. What they mainly campaigned on was the EEC we had joined and confirmed our membership of by a Referendum turning into something else. The latter three in particular are associated with the campaign against the Maastricht Treaty in the early 1990s which, whilst they may ultimately have wished to leave, wasn't about leaving but whether the UK should ratify a treaty which turned a trade community into a wider Union. As this represented a fundamental change to what we had joined in the early 70s I think they were entitled to make their arguments, wrong or right.

Had the 2016 result been Remain I quite agree anyone banging on about Leaving would have looked a bit silly. However, that does not mean no one could comment or canvass about any future changes or policies of the EU.

[confused_buyer]

Coolbanana said:

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

It isn't really happening at all. The truth is the vast majority of people have moved on in their minds and couldn't give a st. Only political types, some press, politicians and obsessives are remotely interested. It is yesterday's news for most people and apart from about 3 weeks in 2016 Europe is so far down most people's lists of political interest it is probably below Fox Hunting.

[jonnyb]

Coolbanana said:

Deptford Draylons said:

What we have at the moment is the equivalent of a lot of people moaning 2 mins after the result of a general election has been announced and people wanting to vote again to correct the result to what they want. That's rather pathetic.

Nonsense.

Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.

The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.

As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.

No excuses!

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

That's how it works, folks!

At last! Some one speaks some sense!

[jonnyb]

confused_buyer said:

Coolbanana said:

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

It isn't really happening at all. The truth is the vast majority of people have moved on in their minds and couldn't give a st. Only political types, some press, politicians and obsessives are remotely interested. It is yesterday's news for most people and apart from about 3 weeks in 2016 Europe is so far down most people's lists of political interest it is probably below Fox Hunting.

That was always the case. However a few people kicked up so much fuss that David Cameron promised a referendum on membership.

Now a few people are kicking up a fuss to try and force an other vote.

All the while the majority just try and get on with life. It has always been such.

[Deptford Draylons]

Coolbanana said:

Nonsense.

Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.

The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.

As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.

No excuses!

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

That's how it works, folks!

I'd love to believe you were as fair minded as you type, but I suspect you are like other Remainers here who were happy to be taken in by a referendum and then thought it a bit off those of an opposing side got another 40 years later. What I despise is the attitude it was a settled thing and should never have been questioned again by the public. That's a rather arrogant attitude to take in keeping what you want and giving no chance of a change.

You could state clearly why you think its right to try and reverse the result before its even been enacted. The last elections had a party offering exactly what you want and a second chance to vote again, but their vote share went down to 7% . So is that the mandate to vote again ?
The wanting to reverse the election result analogy is still a fairly good one. It sounds like you and others want to vote again before we actually leave the EU and before the result of the referendum has been enacted. That is broadly the equivalent to waking up on the morning after an election result to hear Corbyn has won and then demanding another vote before his car arrives in Downing Street.

If you want to make a case for voting again before we leave and within the next two years, lets hear it.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Coolbanana said:

Deptford Draylons said:

What we have at the moment is the equivalent of a lot of people moaning 2 mins after the result of a general election has been announced and people wanting to vote again to correct the result to what they want. That's rather pathetic.

Nonsense.

Elections have agreed Terms of Office. Results can only be changed when those Terms are complete. Campaigning for change however begins the day after any Election as you well know. The Opposition doesn't sit back and wait, they argue and debate vigorously against any action taken by the Elected Party immediately and advise the Public at large how much better suited they would be if they had the keys to No.10.

The Referendum is no different with regards to the democratic right of those who disagree with the outcome to immediately begin campaigning for another crack at it - where the fundamental difference lies is that there is no agreed timescale for another vote. None. So it is even more so in the interests of those who want another vote to campaign as quickly and vigorously as possible. To let things lie and see how they pan out is tacit to acceptance that the result brought about the correct course of action. Many cannot agree with that and they have the right to think that way and effect whatever course of Democratic action they feel is necessary to be heard again.

As for Posters here moaning that they never had an individual vote for the EU in '93 that is true to an extent. They DID however have a vote in who they wanted to represent them in Government and quite clearly there was not enough Public Will to campaign for the Government of that time to not take the UK willingly into the EU. Obviously the feeling generally at that time was to let it happen. Governments win by campaigning for what the majority want so if 51% of the population back then wanted no part in the EU then they should have voiced this to their MP's and campaigned for a halt.

No excuses!

What is happening now is that those who want to Remain are giving voice and campaigning to their MP's and if there is sufficient numbers, they can force a rethink on a second vote.

That's how it works, folks!

The UK just had a vote on who they wanted to represent them in 2017, and they completely failed to vote for the LibDems, the only party which wanted to ignore the democratic vote of the people of the UK, and keep the UK in the EU.
Consequently while all this electronic willy waving is going on in NP&E the government is getting on with the job of taking the UK out of the EU. That is how it works folks.
If in 1975 the people of the UK had been told what the EEC would subsequently turn itself into when they were asked if they wanted the UK to remain in the EEC, the result in 1975 would have been overwhelmingly in favour of getting out of the EEC.
The people who voted in 2016 did so with far more information than was ever made available to the general public in 1975, which makes the decision to leave of even greater validity than the 1975 vote to remain in the EEC.