The People's Vote - which way would you vote?

[psi310398]

Trolleys Thank You said:

By that logic 2016 should be invalidated since we had no idea what leaving would look like and our relationship with the EU. Sounds good.

And applying that logic to 1975?

[Pan Pan Pan]

Trolleys Thank You said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

As for the 1975 vote, how could the people of the UK be asked if they want to be a member of something that did not even exist in 1975?.

The same way they were 2 years ago.The people had no idea what leaving would look like in 2016. There was no fixed version of leaving in existence. Many would argue there still isn't.

Perhaps you might have missed the fact that by 2016 the UK citizen had accrued many years of actual experience of the EU. No one in 1975 even knew we would be sucked into the EU without our permission, let alone what it would mean for the UK. So why all the challenges to the result of the 2016 referendum now?,
The 2016 referendum was based on a planetary difference in the amount of information than was available to the general public in 1975, and thereby far more reliable than the way the UK was sucked into the EU
I ask again how could the UK citizen in 1975 be asked to vote on something that did not even exist in 1975?
This time around the government asked the public, and got a clear answer to their ballot paper question, and should just have started acting on it the same way they let the UK be sucked into the EU, with no further votes for the public, no legal challenges, no further debates in parliament, and the HoL,
As usual the remainers think they should be given vote, after vote, after vote until and if they are able to skew the result to the one they wanted.
If it was OK for the government to take the people of the UK into the EU without asking them if this was what they wanted, why is it not OK for them to take the people out now, but THIS time WITH with their permission?

[don'tbesilly]

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

MolestedSausage said:

A decision has been made, democratically, by the people, and there is no way of the public stopping it until it's met its completion criteria. The EU withdrew the opportunity to go back too. What you are suggesting is worse than no deal.

Incorrect. There's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping people from changing their minds if they wish whenever they wish. Making up silly rules on an internet forum doesn't change that fact. We can have another referendum before leaving.

I'm all for a 2nd referendum once the EU let us know what the new terms of our relationship will be to remain a member of the EU.

Once we know the details and get that vote it will rule out staying as a member once and for all.

Bring it on.

By that logic 2016 should be invalidated since we had no idea what leaving would look like and our relationship with the EU. Sounds good.

Nope doesn't work for me

Those new terms would be a killer for Remain though

[Trolleys Thank You]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Perhaps you might have missed the fact that by 2016 the UK citizen had accrued many years of actual experience of the EU. No one in 1975 even knew we would be sucked into the EU without our permission, let alone what it would mean for the UK. So why all the challenges to the result of the 2016 referendum now?,
The 2016 referendum was based on a planetary difference in the amount of information than was available to the general public in 1975, and thereby far more reliable than the way the UK was sucked into the EU
I ask again how could the UK citizen in 1975 be asked to vote on something that did not even exist in 1975?
This time around the government asked the public, and got a clear answer to their ballot paper question, and should just have started acting on it the same way they let the UK be sucked into the EU, with no further votes for the public, no legal challenges, no further debates in parliament, and the HoL,
As usual the remainers think they should be given vote, after vote, after vote until and if they are able to skew the result to the one they wanted.
If it was OK for the government to take the people of the UK into the EU without asking them if this was what they wanted, why is it not OK for them to take the people out now, but THIS time WITH with their permission?

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

You can satisfy the 2016 and the 1975 vote. Give up EU membership and remain part of the Single Market. Otherwise you're admitting extra democracy is permissible to override old decisions, and therefore a 3rd ref is perfectly acceptable.

[psi310398]

Trolleys Thank You said:

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

You can satisfy the 2016 and the 1975 vote. Give up EU membership and remain part of the Single Market. Otherwise you're admitting extra democracy is permissible to override old decisions, and therefore a 3rd ref is perfectly acceptable.

One minor problem - what was voted for in 1975 is not available. It was perverted and corrupted by Federasts, poor soul1

[Helicopter123]

don'tbesilly said:

Nope doesn't work for me

Those new terms would be a killer for Remain though

Are you finally admitting we may not get a deal as good as the one we already have? The one negotiated by Thatcher and Major?

[Trolleys Thank You]

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

MolestedSausage said:

A decision has been made, democratically, by the people, and there is no way of the public stopping it until it's met its completion criteria. The EU withdrew the opportunity to go back too. What you are suggesting is worse than no deal.

Incorrect. There's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping people from changing their minds if they wish whenever they wish. Making up silly rules on an internet forum doesn't change that fact. We can have another referendum before leaving.

I'm all for a 2nd referendum once the EU let us know what the new terms of our relationship will be to remain a member of the EU.

Once we know the details and get that vote it will rule out staying as a member once and for all.

Bring it on.

By that logic 2016 should be invalidated since we had no idea what leaving would look like and our relationship with the EU. Sounds good.

Nope doesn't work for me

Those new terms would be a killer for Remain though

Nope, wouldn't be a problem at all. The EU would gladly have us as members. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

[Tuna]

Trolleys Thank You said:

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

We gave the first vote 40 years before we decided we'd gained enough information. Should we do the same for Brexit?

Or are you calling for a referendum before we actually see what even the final agreement is, never mind how it pans out? Are you afraid that if people were allowed to see where we got by the end of the transition period, they might actually like it?

[anonymous-user]

Trolleys Thank You said:

people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

And we still don’t know as we haven’t left yet. How can there be a second referendum when the first hasn’t even happened? Maybe give it 10 years on the outside before deciding whether to have a second vote? That way people really will be informed! Trouble is many (not all) remainers don’t want that as they simply want their own way. Thankfully our country’s process for passing law/policy doesn’t listen to the petulant minority.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 13th November 21:16

[Trolleys Thank You]

Tuna said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

We gave the first vote 40 years before we decided we'd gained enough information. Should we do the same for Brexit?

Or are you calling for a referendum before we actually see what even the final agreement is, never mind how it pans out? Are you afraid that if people were allowed to see where we got by the end of the transition period, they might actually like it?

Nope. Half a lifetime is far too long for democracy. We vote on much more inconsequential st a hell of a lot more often than that.

[Trolleys Thank You]

wormus said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

And we still don’t know as we haven’t left yet. How can there be a second referendum when the first hasn’t even happened? Maybe give it 10 years on the outside before deciding whether to have a second vote? That way people really will be informed! Trouble is many (not all) remainers want that as they simply want their own way. Thankfully our country’s process for passing law/policy doesn’t listen to the petulant minority.

Not sure how many times I have to repeat myself. The people are perfectly entitled to change their opinion on an issue whether that thing has happened or not. That's democracy and there is nothing constitutionally stopping us from doing that. The next time this question pops into your head, please re-read this post, it will save us both a lot of time.

[don'tbesilly]

Trolleys Thank You said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Perhaps you might have missed the fact that by 2016 the UK citizen had accrued many years of actual experience of the EU. No one in 1975 even knew we would be sucked into the EU without our permission, let alone what it would mean for the UK. So why all the challenges to the result of the 2016 referendum now?,
The 2016 referendum was based on a planetary difference in the amount of information than was available to the general public in 1975, and thereby far more reliable than the way the UK was sucked into the EU
I ask again how could the UK citizen in 1975 be asked to vote on something that did not even exist in 1975?
This time around the government asked the public, and got a clear answer to their ballot paper question, and should just have started acting on it the same way they let the UK be sucked into the EU, with no further votes for the public, no legal challenges, no further debates in parliament, and the HoL,
As usual the remainers think they should be given vote, after vote, after vote until and if they are able to skew the result to the one they wanted.
If it was OK for the government to take the people of the UK into the EU without asking them if this was what they wanted, why is it not OK for them to take the people out now, but THIS time WITH with their permission?

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

You can satisfy the 2016 and the 1975 vote. Give up EU membership and remain part of the Single Market. Otherwise you're admitting extra democracy is permissible to override old decisions, and therefore a 3rd ref is perfectly acceptable.

But we do now know roughly where the EU is heading and what it has planned and is quite some way down the road of achieving, something the UK currently has a veto for stopping.

Hence the UK 's relationship that existed prior to the referendum could not possibly remain as was, and new terms would have to be revealed and voted on were there to be a second referendum.

You'd want to know what the terms would be?
You might not want to know, but millions would, and they need to be informed exactly what they would be voting for.

Bring it on, a 2nd vote for a much,much bigger majority to leave, excellent, just what's needed

[Trolleys Thank You]

don'tbesilly said:

But we do now know roughly where the EU is heading and what it has planned and is quite some way down the road of achieving, something the UK currently has a veto for stopping.

Hence the UK 's relationship that existed prior to the referendum could not possibly remain as was, and new terms would have to be revealed and voted on were there to be a second referendum.

You'd want to know what the terms would be?
You might not want to know, but millions would, and they need to be informed exactly what they would be voting for.

Bring it on, a 2nd vote for a much,much bigger majority to leave, excellent, just what's needed

Not going to happen. The people are fed up of Brexit and see it for the con job it was. Remain will win by at least 65% when it happens. Most Brexiters know that and that's why they're coming up with these extremely tenuous excuses on why more democracy is a bad thing.

[steve_k]

Trolleys Thank You said:

Tuna said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

We gave the first vote 40 years before we decided we'd gained enough information. Should we do the same for Brexit?

Or are you calling for a referendum before we actually see what even the final agreement is, never mind how it pans out? Are you afraid that if people were allowed to see where we got by the end of the transition period, they might actually like it?

Nope. Half a lifetime is far too long for democracy. We vote on much more inconsequential st a hell of a lot more often than that.

Would you be happy with a vote on our membership every couple of years if as you say half a lifetime is too long or would you prefer to just keep voting until you get the result you want?

[Havoc856-S]

steve_k said:

just keep voting until you get the result you want?

Therein lies the truth of the problem.

[Trolleys Thank You]

steve_k said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

Tuna said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

The people voted to be part of a common trading area in 1975, call it what you want. The same way as the people voted to stop being members of the EU, without any idea of what that would actually look like.

We gave the first vote 40 years before we decided we'd gained enough information. Should we do the same for Brexit?

Or are you calling for a referendum before we actually see what even the final agreement is, never mind how it pans out? Are you afraid that if people were allowed to see where we got by the end of the transition period, they might actually like it?

Nope. Half a lifetime is far too long for democracy. We vote on much more inconsequential st a hell of a lot more often than that.

Would you be happy with a vote on our membership every couple of years if as you say half a lifetime is too long or would you prefer to just keep voting until you get the result you want?

Sure, why not? I vote on who collects the bins every 5 years. This is a bit more important than that don't you think?

[ExVantagemech..]

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

But we do now know roughly where the EU is heading and what it has planned and is quite some way down the road of achieving, something the UK currently has a veto for stopping.

Hence the UK 's relationship that existed prior to the referendum could not possibly remain as was, and new terms would have to be revealed and voted on were there to be a second referendum.

You'd want to know what the terms would be?
You might not want to know, but millions would, and they need to be informed exactly what they would be voting for.

Bring it on, a 2nd vote for a much,much bigger majority to leave, excellent, just what's needed

Not going to happen. The people are fed up of Brexit and see it for the con job it was. Remain will win by at least 65% when it happens. Most Brexiters know that and that's why they're coming up with these extremely tenuous excuses on why more democracy is a bad thing.

Youre right on one thing. People are fed up with Brexit. Or to be more precise, fed up with the poor execution.
The only con job has been the failure of the Conservative government to actually execute the result in any sort of fashion that was voted for.

And dont tell me we didnt know what we were voting for etc etc etc.
What were we staying in for exactly? We werent joining an army back then were we.....

[Robertj21a]

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

But we do now know roughly where the EU is heading and what it has planned and is quite some way down the road of achieving, something the UK currently has a veto for stopping.

Hence the UK 's relationship that existed prior to the referendum could not possibly remain as was, and new terms would have to be revealed and voted on were there to be a second referendum.

You'd want to know what the terms would be?
You might not want to know, but millions would, and they need to be informed exactly what they would be voting for.

Bring it on, a 2nd vote for a much,much bigger majority to leave, excellent, just what's needed

Not going to happen. The people are fed up of Brexit and see it for the con job it was. Remain will win by at least 65% when it happens. Most Brexiters know that and that's why they're coming up with these extremely tenuous excuses on why more democracy is a bad thing.

Now I know that you are completely off your.......er......Trolley.

Apart from the metropolitan centres (who never seem to understand that the majority of the population live elsewhere), any future vote on membership of the EU would be a sizeable vote to Leave. Certainly way over 52%.

It's only some of the Remainers who just can't accept, or even believe, this. It's really not surprising that the country has problems when so many 'experts' haven't a clue what the rest of the electorate really feel.

[don'tbesilly]

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

MolestedSausage said:

A decision has been made, democratically, by the people, and there is no way of the public stopping it until it's met its completion criteria. The EU withdrew the opportunity to go back too. What you are suggesting is worse than no deal.

Incorrect. There's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping people from changing their minds if they wish whenever they wish. Making up silly rules on an internet forum doesn't change that fact. We can have another referendum before leaving.

I'm all for a 2nd referendum once the EU let us know what the new terms of our relationship will be to remain a member of the EU.

Once we know the details and get that vote it will rule out staying as a member once and for all.

Bring it on.

By that logic 2016 should be invalidated since we had no idea what leaving would look like and our relationship with the EU. Sounds good.

Nope doesn't work for me

Those new terms would be a killer for Remain though

Nope, wouldn't be a problem at all. The EU would gladly have us as members. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

Yet they've said they won't under the same terms, both the EU commissioner for the EU budget has said the UK will lose the rebate, and Verhofstadt said:

“Emanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. I agree,” Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”

Suck it up Fella, any 2nd referendum would decimate the dream.
That's why the EU/UK elite are desperate to stop Brexit, once the UK leaves it will never vote to rejoin, a 2nd referendum would also result in a bigger majority to leave.

Sorry you don't like the truth

[Earthdweller]

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

don'tbesilly said:

Trolleys Thank You said:

MolestedSausage said:

A decision has been made, democratically, by the people, and there is no way of the public stopping it until it's met its completion criteria. The EU withdrew the opportunity to go back too. What you are suggesting is worse than no deal.

Incorrect. There's absolutely nothing constitutionally stopping people from changing their minds if they wish whenever they wish. Making up silly rules on an internet forum doesn't change that fact. We can have another referendum before leaving.

I'm all for a 2nd referendum once the EU let us know what the new terms of our relationship will be to remain a member of the EU.

Once we know the details and get that vote it will rule out staying as a member once and for all.

Bring it on.

By that logic 2016 should be invalidated since we had no idea what leaving would look like and our relationship with the EU. Sounds good.

Nope doesn't work for me

Those new terms would be a killer for Remain though

Nope, wouldn't be a problem at all. The EU would gladly have us as members. I'm sorry that makes you uncomfortable.

Yet they've said they won't under the same terms, both the EU commissioner for the EU budget has said the UK will lose the rebate, and Verhofstadt said:

“Emanuel Macron, the new French President, spoke about an open door. I agree,” Mr Verhofstadt said. “But like Alice in Wonderland not all the doors are the same. It will be a brand new door, with a new Europe, a Europe without rebates, without complexity, with real powers and with unity. That is the door towards Europe.”

Suck it up Fella, any 2nd referendum would decimate the dream.
That's why the EU/UK elite are desperate to stop Brexit, once the UK leaves it will never vote to rejoin, a 2nd referendum would also result in a bigger majority to leave.

Sorry you don't like the truth

I agree .. going back in would be:

accepting the Euro and losing the pound

Losing fiscal and policy control

Joining the Schengen zone

Joining the EU Army

Etc etc .. how many of those that bought the remain scaremongering would accept the new revised terms ?