Brexit: would you change your vote.
Discussion
Elysium said:
...
Democracy is continuous. When we have a change of Government following a general election we don't argue that the latest vote has 'ignored' the democratic decision of the previous one.
We don't have another general election before the new government has taken it's seats because a vocal group didn't like the result either, nor 2 years later because the polls move against them. If, like me, you disagreed with the idea of having a referendum in the first place then having a second is a total cop out and nothing more than an obvious free roll of the dice to overturn the 1st. The results of the referendum AFAIK are not legally binding and A50 can be retracted; it's within the power of parliament to abandon Brexit if they feel that's what the electorate want from them; no need for another referendum. Lastly if you lose the second one the same logic calling for the second one in the name of democracy applies to the third, etc... to pretend otherwise is naive at best (and I've already said I'd vote remain in a second one)Democracy is continuous. When we have a change of Government following a general election we don't argue that the latest vote has 'ignored' the democratic decision of the previous one.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
My IQ's only barely high enough for Mensa, so still slightly below the dizzying heights of the entry bar to being a remain voter, at least based on polling by the same organisations that told us remain would win, backed by Diane Abbott.I can see why when the electorate is told a vote for leave will mean leaving and they vote to leave, to then have another vote could be taken as against their wishes. I mean, what was the point of the first vote at all then?
Worse still though, is what we'd do with a vote to remain from a smaller turnout. Or the squealing from another leave result.
B'stard Child said:
I think Leave would walk it with a far larger majority - I'm not opposed to a second referendum or a third - just cannot see what question would be acceptable to all and what it will actually achieve with regard to the current impasse in government....
I suspect that we would see larger majorities in the same direction in most constituencies. Whether that would change the outcome is moot but talk of 'a far larger majority' is very wide of the mark.If there is a second referendum - and if May was more of a politician and less of a bureaucrat there would be - then my money is on the two questions being;
- Do you want to leave the EU on the terms proposed by the Govt?
- Do you want to remain in the EU?
If she were more politically savvy and less risk averse, this is how May would box off the risk of a no-deal Brexit.
As it is, I expect she'll funk the 2nd referendum and go for an A50 extension
B'stard Child said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
I think Leave would walk it with a far larger majority - I'm not opposed to a second referendum or a third - just cannot see what question would be acceptable to all and what it will actually achieve with regard to the current impasse in government....Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
B'stard Child said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
I think Leave would walk it with a far larger majority - I'm not opposed to a second referendum or a third - just cannot see what question would be acceptable to all and what it will actually achieve with regard to the current impasse in government....Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Elysium said:
gooner1 said:
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.
To summarise, you think that ignoring a democratically reached decision 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 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.
How is it possible for a second referendum to ignore a democratically reached decision? The act of holding a second referendum does not in itself change our course. Like the 2016 referendum it would be advisory.
If the mandate is still to leave, then that is a democratic decision.
If the mandate has changed and the majority now want to remain, then that is still a democratic decision.
Democracy is continuous. When we have a change of Government following a general election we don't argue that the latest vote has 'ignored' the democratic decision of the previous one.
Your argument hinges on the idea that one vote is more important than another. That can only be because the vote you want honoured gets you something you want.
I am fine with that as a personal view, but I maintain that it is hypocritical to argue against a second referendum to 'defend democracy'.
As I am sure you know Jacob Rees Mogg agreed with me in 2011 when he proposed the following in Parliament:
JRM said:
It might make more sense to have the second referendum after the renegotiation is completed
mandate to leave the EU has been enacted is just another way to get the vote you dislike overturned and the vote you want carried out. Undemocratic and hypocritical.
I like many other leave voters have stated that had the vote gone the remain direction, then that verdict would have been respected. That train of thought is obviously nor reciprocated by
remainers such as yourself.
The feelings of entitlement you display make me laugh, at the same time as heightening
my pleasure of leaving your beloved EU , perhaps for good or maybe another referendum
In 40 years will reverse our democratic vote.
768 said:
My IQ's only barely high enough for Mensa, so still slightly below the dizzying heights of the entry bar to being a remain voter, at least based on polling by the same organisations that told us remain would win, backed by Diane Abbott..
I'm even thicker than that!! And I read David Cameron's £9m leaflet.ClaphamGT3 said:
B'stard Child said:
I think Leave would walk it with a far larger majority - I'm not opposed to a second referendum or a third - just cannot see what question would be acceptable to all and what it will actually achieve with regard to the current impasse in government....
I suspect that we would see larger majorities in the same direction in most constituencies. Whether that would change the outcome is moot but talk of 'a far larger majority' is very wide of the mark.My view is the vast majority of people who voted either leave or remain were in the middle - if they thought anotehr referendum was being used to reverse the result of the previous one well I have a gut feel that they wouldn't like that much and would vote accordingly
ClaphamGT3 said:
If there is a second referendum - and if May was more of a politician and less of a bureaucrat there would be - then my money is on the two questions being;
- Do you want to leave the EU on the terms proposed by the Govt?
- Do you want to remain in the EU?
Remain (trapped -ish) and remain (more) - even she is not that stupid - Do you want to leave the EU on the terms proposed by the Govt?
- Do you want to remain in the EU?
ClaphamGT3 said:
If she were more politically savvy and less risk averse, this is how May would box off the risk of a no-deal Brexit.
As it is, I expect she'll funk the 2nd referendum and go for an A50 extension
I think most sensible people in government would be sAs it is, I expect she'll funk the 2nd referendum and go for an A50 extension
t scared of another referendum - the British tend to be a bit stubborn or even contrary when they think they are having the piss taken out of them.I think "no deal" will become "managed deal" if she can't get her WA thro
fouronthefloor said:
B'stard Child said:
I think most sensible people in government would be st scared of another referendum - the British tend to be a bit stubborn or even contrary when they think they are having the piss taken out of them.
One of the best ways to motivate people is to insult them.t scared of another referendum - the British tend to be a bit stubborn or even contrary when they think they are having the piss taken out of them.davey68 said:
Agree with the above. I think it would be close but I think leave would win again. My point is it would achieve nothing and just cause more division. Nice comments Clapham, I think you missed a dig at leavers being old and racist too. Might have got a full house then. Classy.
At least he left out his usual dig at Leave voters as being mud hut dwellers.ClaphamGT3 - epitome of why 10's of thousands, possibly into millions of people voted Leave.
You know, I'm not convinced that a second referendum would go in favour of leave.
I associate with people from both ends of the social scale and from my reckoning, the leave voters hail from each end.
The remainers seem to be the social climbers, the faux degree wannabes, the influenced- not the influential.
This is where the remain campaign would strike.
I associate with people from both ends of the social scale and from my reckoning, the leave voters hail from each end.
The remainers seem to be the social climbers, the faux degree wannabes, the influenced- not the influential.
This is where the remain campaign would strike.
fouronthefloor said:
You know, I'm not convinced that a second referendum would go in favour of leave.
I associate with people from both ends of the social scale and from my reckoning, the leave voters hail from each end.
The demographics of all those who voted in the 2016 referendum have been dragged over many times and whilst those who favoured a remain result keep digging in for the stereotypes they don't work because there are too many exceptions.I associate with people from both ends of the social scale and from my reckoning, the leave voters hail from each end.
fouronthefloor said:
The remainers seem to be the social climbers, the faux degree wannabes, the influenced- not the influential.
This is where the remain campaign would strike.
OK that would make a change in terms of a campaign - clearly doom, gloom and Armageddon wasn't so successful last time - are there enough Social Climbers etc to get a result?This is where the remain campaign would strike.
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Pathetic comment. Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Leicester Loyal said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Pathetic comment. Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
So, given that we currently have an impasse on Brexit that may very well lead to no Brexit at all, why not solve the matter once and for all and have another referendum?
fouronthefloor said:
I'm well aware of the current political situation. You are skirting around my question for some reason.
You are very good at replying with questions but you seem intent on stirring things up rather than putting forward your own personal opinions.
Is it because you doubt your debating abilities?
Judging by the amount of time you've spent commenting on Brexit threads (the only threads you comment on) I guess you must have some views of your own. I'd like to know your personal view.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why you voted to remain?
My reasons for voting the other way are very simple because I live a very simple life. I don't like to get embroiled in discussions about highfalutin politics because of this, yet I'd like to be persuaded that I voted the wrong way.
From what I've read so far, I made the right choice.
You obviously know a lot. I'd like you to give me some meaty nuggets of wisdom to help me regret my decision.
You asked me if I think we should have another referendum and I replied by saying that it makes no difference what I think and that it is up to our MPs to make that decision.You are very good at replying with questions but you seem intent on stirring things up rather than putting forward your own personal opinions.
Is it because you doubt your debating abilities?
Judging by the amount of time you've spent commenting on Brexit threads (the only threads you comment on) I guess you must have some views of your own. I'd like to know your personal view.
Perhaps you could start by explaining why you voted to remain?
My reasons for voting the other way are very simple because I live a very simple life. I don't like to get embroiled in discussions about highfalutin politics because of this, yet I'd like to be persuaded that I voted the wrong way.
From what I've read so far, I made the right choice.
You obviously know a lot. I'd like you to give me some meaty nuggets of wisdom to help me regret my decision.
If there were to be another referendum I would vote but as far as I am aware there isn't another referendum.
I won't be telling you what millions of people know and think because that would be BS. I will leave that to the PH experts who have been consistently wrong.
ClaphamGT3 said:
Leicester Loyal said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The irrational - almost visceral - opposition to a second referendum by Brexiteers is interesting.
Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
Pathetic comment. Whilst, by and large, leave voters were less well educated and less intelligent than remain voters, I can't believe that they are so stupid that they believe the pro -Brexit nonsense that another vote by the electorate somehow betrays the wishes of the electorate.
That only leaves the conclusion that they aren't confident that, now, with better facts, they'd win.
So, given that we currently have an impasse on Brexit that may very well lead to no Brexit at all, why not solve the matter once and for all and have another referendum?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff