If Brexit is cancelled, how will you vote on the next GE?

[bigdog3]

Kermit power said:

Whereas for the first (and probably last) time in my life, I'll be voting Lib Dem at the Europeans, for being the only party with any sense and principles.

Verbatim from the LibDems website:

"Stand with us and fight for an Exit from Brexit.
We believe that Britain is better off in the EU. That's why we're fighting for an Exit from Brexit. The Conservatives are making a mess of Brexit, and the Labour Leadership continue to support them. The Liberal Democrats want to give you the final say on the Brexit deal. You should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain's future. If it's not, then you should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union. If you're with us, join our campaigns today."

So the LibDems want to reverse the decision of the 2016 Referendum and hold a "People's Vote" because the electorate got the answer wrong the first time. Sense and principles???

[Randy Winkman]

bigdog3 said:

Kermit power said:

Whereas for the first (and probably last) time in my life, I'll be voting Lib Dem at the Europeans, for being the only party with any sense and principles.

Verbatim from the LibDems website:

"Stand with us and fight for an Exit from Brexit.
We believe that Britain is better off in the EU. That's why we're fighting for an Exit from Brexit. The Conservatives are making a mess of Brexit, and the Labour Leadership continue to support them. The Liberal Democrats want to give you the final say on the Brexit deal. You should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain's future. If it's not, then you should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union. If you're with us, join our campaigns today."

So the LibDems want to reverse the decision of the 2016 Referendum and hold a "People's Vote" because the electorate got the answer wrong the first time. Sense and principles???

But if it's clearly stated as a policy and people vote for it that's OK isn't it? Nobody will be forced to vote for them

[fatboy18]

I've just voted UKIP in my council elections

[Kermit power]

Randy Winkman said:

bigdog3 said:

Kermit power said:

Whereas for the first (and probably last) time in my life, I'll be voting Lib Dem at the Europeans, for being the only party with any sense and principles.

Verbatim from the LibDems website:

"Stand with us and fight for an Exit from Brexit.
We believe that Britain is better off in the EU. That's why we're fighting for an Exit from Brexit. The Conservatives are making a mess of Brexit, and the Labour Leadership continue to support them. The Liberal Democrats want to give you the final say on the Brexit deal. You should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain's future. If it's not, then you should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union. If you're with us, join our campaigns today."

So the LibDems want to reverse the decision of the 2016 Referendum and hold a "People's Vote" because the electorate got the answer wrong the first time. Sense and principles???

But if it's clearly stated as a policy and people vote for it that's OK isn't it? Nobody will be forced to vote for them

Precisely. The notion that just because there was one narrowly decided vote on a matter we should never be able to dispute the result or lobby for it to be reversed is an appalling attack on democracy, just as it would be if politicians were to turn round and say they were going to ignore the result of the referendum and not put it up for further debate.

The completely disingenuous position of "we must leave now, but could always rejoin later if that becomes the will of the people" whilst knowing full well that this would mean joining in a much weaker position, including having to accept the Euro is, almost on its own, enough to get me to vote Libdem, just in the hope of ensuring proper debate.

[PositronicRay]

Piha said:

silentbrown said:

digimeistter said:

Just had a pre-election questionnaire through from The Conservatives, even gave me a Freepost envelope.

Brexit party isn't contesting COUNCIL elections, though.

Very negative, vote for someone that stands for something, not for people that just stand against stuff.

[amusingduck]

Kermit power said:

Randy Winkman said:

bigdog3 said:

Kermit power said:

Whereas for the first (and probably last) time in my life, I'll be voting Lib Dem at the Europeans, for being the only party with any sense and principles.

Verbatim from the LibDems website:

"Stand with us and fight for an Exit from Brexit.
We believe that Britain is better off in the EU. That's why we're fighting for an Exit from Brexit. The Conservatives are making a mess of Brexit, and the Labour Leadership continue to support them. The Liberal Democrats want to give you the final say on the Brexit deal. You should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain's future. If it's not, then you should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union. If you're with us, join our campaigns today."

So the LibDems want to reverse the decision of the 2016 Referendum and hold a "People's Vote" because the electorate got the answer wrong the first time. Sense and principles???

But if it's clearly stated as a policy and people vote for it that's OK isn't it? Nobody will be forced to vote for them

Precisely. The notion that just because there was one narrowly decided vote on a matter we should never be able to dispute the result or lobby for it to be reversed is an appalling attack on democracy, just as it would be if politicians were to turn round and say they were going to ignore the result of the referendum and not put it up for further debate.

The completely disingenuous position of "we must leave now, but could always rejoin later if that becomes the will of the people" whilst knowing full well that this would mean joining in a much weaker position, including having to accept the Euro is, almost on its own, enough to get me to vote Libdem, just in the hope of ensuring proper debate.

Just in the hope of winning the debate this time. We had a proper debate last time, weren't you paying attention? Wikipedia is kind enough to list some of the areas that were debated at the time.

5 Campaign
6 Responses to the referendum campaign
6.1 Party policies
6.1.1 Great Britain
6.1.2 Northern Ireland
6.1.3 Gibraltar
6.1.4 Minor parties
6.2 Cabinet ministers
6.3 Business
6.4 Exchange rates and stock markets
6.5 European responses
6.6 Non-European responses
6.6.1 International Monetary Fund
6.6.2 United States
6.6.3 Other states
6.7 Economists
6.7.1 Institute for Fiscal Studies
6.8 Lawyers
6.9 NHS officials
6.10 British health charities
6.11 Fishing industry
6.12 Historians
6.13 Exit plan competition
7 Opinion polling
7.1 On the day YouGov Poll
8 Issues
9 Debates, question and answer sessions and interviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_...

[Randy Winkman]

amusingduck said:

Kermit power said:

Randy Winkman said:

bigdog3 said:

Kermit power said:

Whereas for the first (and probably last) time in my life, I'll be voting Lib Dem at the Europeans, for being the only party with any sense and principles.

Verbatim from the LibDems website:

"Stand with us and fight for an Exit from Brexit.
We believe that Britain is better off in the EU. That's why we're fighting for an Exit from Brexit. The Conservatives are making a mess of Brexit, and the Labour Leadership continue to support them. The Liberal Democrats want to give you the final say on the Brexit deal. You should be able to choose whether the deal is the right deal for Britain's future. If it's not, then you should be able to reject it and remain in the European Union. If you're with us, join our campaigns today."

So the LibDems want to reverse the decision of the 2016 Referendum and hold a "People's Vote" because the electorate got the answer wrong the first time. Sense and principles???

But if it's clearly stated as a policy and people vote for it that's OK isn't it? Nobody will be forced to vote for them

Precisely. The notion that just because there was one narrowly decided vote on a matter we should never be able to dispute the result or lobby for it to be reversed is an appalling attack on democracy, just as it would be if politicians were to turn round and say they were going to ignore the result of the referendum and not put it up for further debate.

The completely disingenuous position of "we must leave now, but could always rejoin later if that becomes the will of the people" whilst knowing full well that this would mean joining in a much weaker position, including having to accept the Euro is, almost on its own, enough to get me to vote Libdem, just in the hope of ensuring proper debate.

Just in the hope of winning the debate this time. We had a proper debate last time, weren't you paying attention? Wikipedia is kind enough to list some of the areas that were debated at the time.

5 Campaign
6 Responses to the referendum campaign
6.1 Party policies
6.1.1 Great Britain
6.1.2 Northern Ireland
6.1.3 Gibraltar
6.1.4 Minor parties
6.2 Cabinet ministers
6.3 Business
6.4 Exchange rates and stock markets
6.5 European responses
6.6 Non-European responses
6.6.1 International Monetary Fund
6.6.2 United States
6.6.3 Other states
6.7 Economists
6.7.1 Institute for Fiscal Studies
6.8 Lawyers
6.9 NHS officials
6.10 British health charities
6.11 Fishing industry
6.12 Historians
6.13 Exit plan competition
7 Opinion polling
7.1 On the day YouGov Poll
8 Issues
9 Debates, question and answer sessions and interviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_...

But it's the LibDems offering it as an alternative that people can either take or leave as they see fit. It's not the current Government forcing it on anyone.

[AshVX220]

Kermit power said:

Precisely. The notion that just because there was one narrowly decided vote on a matter we should never be able to dispute the result or lobby for it to be reversed is an appalling attack on democracy, just as it would be if politicians were to turn round and say they were going to ignore the result of the referendum and not put it up for further debate.

The completely disingenuous position of "we must leave now, but could always rejoin later if that becomes the will of the people" whilst knowing full well that this would mean joining in a much weaker position, including having to accept the Euro is, almost on its own, enough to get me to vote Libdem, just in the hope of ensuring proper debate.

I imagine if Brexit were to be reversed the bit in bold would be a pre-requisite anyway to be honest.

[Kermit power]

AshVX220 said:

Kermit power said:

Precisely. The notion that just because there was one narrowly decided vote on a matter we should never be able to dispute the result or lobby for it to be reversed is an appalling attack on democracy, just as it would be if politicians were to turn round and say they were going to ignore the result of the referendum and not put it up for further debate.

The completely disingenuous position of "we must leave now, but could always rejoin later if that becomes the will of the people" whilst knowing full well that this would mean joining in a much weaker position, including having to accept the Euro is, almost on its own, enough to get me to vote Libdem, just in the hope of ensuring proper debate.

I imagine if Brexit were to be reversed the bit in bold would be a pre-requisite anyway to be honest.

I don't see why it would be before we actually leave, given that the European Courts have said we can revoke Article 50 unilaterally. How could we be forced to take the Euro? If we leave and come back later, of course, very different matter...

[Kermit power]

amusingduck said:

Just in the hope of winning the debate this time. We had a proper debate last time, weren't you paying attention? Wikipedia is kind enough to list some of the areas that were debated at the time.

5 Campaign
6 Responses to the referendum campaign
6.1 Party policies
6.1.1 Great Britain
6.1.2 Northern Ireland
6.1.3 Gibraltar
6.1.4 Minor parties
6.2 Cabinet ministers
6.3 Business
6.4 Exchange rates and stock markets
6.5 European responses
6.6 Non-European responses
6.6.1 International Monetary Fund
6.6.2 United States
6.6.3 Other states
6.7 Economists
6.7.1 Institute for Fiscal Studies
6.8 Lawyers
6.9 NHS officials
6.10 British health charities
6.11 Fishing industry
6.12 Historians
6.13 Exit plan competition
7 Opinion polling
7.1 On the day YouGov Poll
8 Issues
9 Debates, question and answer sessions and interviews

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_...

OK, as a starting point, how many mentions are made in that article to the Good Friday agreement?

You're correct in that there was a debate. Personally I believe it's time for people to have another one, this time with some actual knowledge.

[Crippo]

I’ll vote for the people I believe in. I won’t read their manifesto because I don’t think it’s relevant. I know who I like and why I like them. I’m not going to be swayed by tactical voting this time. I’m not playing the first last the post game. I’m not going to lend my support or endorse people I don’t hugely agree with to keep out a load of people I dislike more. If the Country goes to rat st because of this then perhaps it’s a cathartic process we must live through.

[amusingduck]

Kermit power said:

OK, as a starting point, how many mentions are made in that article to the Good Friday agreement?

You're correct in that there was a debate. Personally I believe it's time for people to have another one, this time with some actual knowledge.

Fill yer boots

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/w...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/y...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-pol...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/i...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14566279.how-a...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-britain-...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-brexit-woul...


Took about a minute to find

[Kermit power]

amusingduck said:

Kermit power said:

OK, as a starting point, how many mentions are made in that article to the Good Friday agreement?

You're correct in that there was a debate. Personally I believe it's time for people to have another one, this time with some actual knowledge.

Fill yer boots

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/w...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/y...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-pol...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/i...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14566279.how-a...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-britain-...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-brexit-woul...


Took about a minute to find

None of which are in the Wikipedia article you initially claimed covered all the points of debate, but never mind.

Interesting that every single one of those articles are basically repetitions of the same story, all dated within 2 days of each other, and none, from a quick scan through, make any mention of the possibility that we'd be breaching a legally binding international treaty with another country.

Whatever way you try to spin it, though, I don't believe that any more than a tiny fraction of the population could honestly say that they were anything remotely like as fully informed on the potential problems of the Irish border as they are now, along with numerous other points of discussion.

It's perfectly possible that the vast amount of additional information we've now all got access to wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, in which case Leave really would have a proper mandate, but it's certainly something I reckon should be tested.

[bigdog3]

Kermit power said:

Whatever way you try to spin it, though, I don't believe that any more than a tiny fraction of the population could honestly say that they were anything remotely like as fully informed on the potential problems of the Irish border as they are now, along with numerous other points of discussion.

It's perfectly possible that the vast amount of additional information we've now all got access to wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, in which case Leave really would have a proper mandate, but it's certainly something I reckon should be tested.

More information becomes available as time goes on. Hardly likely to be less !

What is the point in voting at elections, referenda etc, if the result is going to be ignored or over-ridden ?

[PositronicRay]

bigdog3 said:

Kermit power said:

Whatever way you try to spin it, though, I don't believe that any more than a tiny fraction of the population could honestly say that they were anything remotely like as fully informed on the potential problems of the Irish border as they are now, along with numerous other points of discussion.

It's perfectly possible that the vast amount of additional information we've now all got access to wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, in which case Leave really would have a proper mandate, but it's certainly something I reckon should be tested.

More information becomes available as time goes on. Hardly likely to be less !

What is the point in voting at elections, referenda etc, if the result is going to be ignored or over-ridden ?

Who's ignoring it?

[amusingduck]

Kermit power said:

amusingduck said:

Kermit power said:

OK, as a starting point, how many mentions are made in that article to the Good Friday agreement?

You're correct in that there was a debate. Personally I believe it's time for people to have another one, this time with some actual knowledge.

Fill yer boots

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/w...
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/06/y...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-pol...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/20/i...
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/14566279.how-a...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/brexit-britain-...
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/why-brexit-woul...


Took about a minute to find

None of which are in the Wikipedia article you initially claimed covered all the points of debate, but never mind.

Interesting that every single one of those articles are basically repetitions of the same story, all dated within 2 days of each other, and none, from a quick scan through, make any mention of the possibility that we'd be breaching a legally binding international treaty with another country.

Whatever way you try to spin it, though, I don't believe that any more than a tiny fraction of the population could honestly say that they were anything remotely like as fully informed on the potential problems of the Irish border as they are now, along with numerous other points of discussion.

It's perfectly possible that the vast amount of additional information we've now all got access to wouldn't change the outcome of the vote, in which case Leave really would have a proper mandate, but it's certainly something I reckon should be tested.

Yes they are all around the same time, I don't feel like trawling through months of disparate news articles for something you'd dismiss as not being on Wikipedia

Nobody was fully informed, you can't force people to be informed, which is exactly why your argument is illogical. The information was widely reported last time and nobody knew what they were voting for, now the information is widely reported they will know what they're voting for.

Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim that people are now more informed? I'll counter with-

order-order said:

Even if all 4% of Remainers and 7% of Leavers who said they would now switch their votes had voted the other way, it would still have resulted in a narrow Leave victory.

https://order-order.com/2019/04/16/voters-no-bregrets-way-voted-referendum/
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-repo...

If they were ill-informed, it's seemingly made bugger all difference to their decision. Which begs the question of why we need to have a re-run because people were uninformed, yet haven't changed their mind now they're more informed.

[bigdog3]

PositronicRay said:

Who's ignoring it?

Majority of our elected MPs do not want to implement Brexit

[Piha]

bigdog3 said:

Majority of our elected MPs do not want to implement Brexit

Thankfully.

[alfie2244]

amusingduck said:

https://order-order.com/2019/04/16/voters-no-bregr...
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-repo...

If they were ill-informed, it's seemingly made bugger all difference to their decision. Which begs the question of why we need to have a re-run because people were uninformed, yet haven't changed their mind now they're more informed.

I'm sure I have asked this more than once before........Why is it only those that voted Remain that want a 2nd referendum?

Is it because now they are better informed, seen what the EU really think of us and how they operate and now want to vote leave?

[bigdog3]

alfie2244 said:

I'm sure I have asked this more than once before........Why is it only those that voted Remain that want a 2nd referendum?

Is it because now they are better informed, seen what the EU really think of us and how they operate and now want to vote leave?