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

[AstonZagato]

amusingduck said:

AstonZagato said:

I have been saying for a couple of years that the political imperative would dictate a second referendum. It provides the political cover for whoever actually implements the will of the people, should that decision go wrong.

How did the first referendum not provide that cover? It was very explicit that the result would be implemented no matter what.

Because the electorate didn't know the manner of the exit or the details of our future relationship at the time of the first referendum. A second referendum on the deal gives the political cover for the implementation of that deal (or backing away from it) and could unite the disparate wings of the various political parties (as a clear vote on the final deal makes the "will of the people" more difficult to deny).

[Frank7]

I would want to vote Conservative, but they have little chance of winning in my constituency, although they’re making progress, so both my wife and I would vote Lib-Dem, in an effort to keep Labour out.
We’d rather take a chance on Kim Jong-un getting in, than Corbyn and McDonnell.
Although with merde for brains Farage’s crew muddying the waters, we’d wait to see which way the cookie appears to be crumbling, then decide.

[wc98]

AJL308 said:

Bookies aren't sharp. They set the odds largely by how much has been wagered already so as to minimise loss or deter people from betting and making a different bet.

how do they set odds on a bet before a bet has been placed ? the odds will change according to how the book builds, but at the outset people make a call based on all the available information surely ? people place all sorts of bets where there are relatively few others betting at all.

[crankedup]

GroundEffect said:

Down and out said:

Piha said:

bigdog3 said:

Majority of our elected MPs do not want to implement Brexit

Thankfully.

You may think leaving the EU will be a disaster but ignoring democracy will cause far more problems.

Should our elected MPs be principled (i.e. do what they think is right for the country and their constituency) or be populist?

Most elected MPs are people off the street, no special qualifications are required or asked for.
Why do so many of these people consider that they know better than the people who have elected them? Two thirds of constituencies are leave one third remain.

[crankedup]

bigdog3 said:

AstonZagato said:

However, seeing that polling, I think that second referendum is now off the table. Parliament will not risk being told that we have to leave on terms harder than they want. They want to find a way to stay, either outright or in all but name.

And that folks is how the majority of MPs are ignoring the 2016 referendum result

If you like, substitute the verb 'defying' but their intent remains the same...

Yup, unfortunately for them the leave camp are becoming a little insistent regarding thier vote intentions. This is making the whole affair troublesome for our HoC, how can they blindside the leave camp? And then along comes our dear friend Nigel with the Brexit Party. Interesting times ahead.

[irocfan]

Down and out said:

PositronicRay said:

I don't think it's about winning or losing, it's about being sure. (I don't particularly want another ref, but would take part)

Being sure? Better take two votes on everything from now on then, maybe three would totally confirm things?

actually what the remainers are asking for is best of 3. If they lose the next vote there's no doubt at all (but of course there'll be another reason why leave is wrong) if they win then there'll be a 3rd vote (well I say 'will' this actually happening would mean there should be a 3rd - can't see that being allowed....)

[Mr. White]

grumbledoak said:

If a referendum means nothing, why vote?

Because that's what they want. Stand by and let Cooper et al carry on as though nothing's changed, or boot them out?

[Pan Pan Pan]

amusingduck said:

PositronicRay said:

AJL308 said:

Rivenink said:

I don't think anyone posited that a confirmatory referendum would be a walkover for either side. Indeed, if the majority was that clear that one option would be predicted to win as a "walkover", there would be little need for it.

It is blindingly obvious that Remain wanted another shout at it because they think, or have convinced themselves, that they'd win. If they thought they'd lose they wouldn't be asking for it.

I don't think it's about winning or losing, it's about being sure. (I don't particularly want another ref, but would take part)

Why does only one course of action require confirmation?

Why was a single referendum enough to settle our membership for 40+ years, and why was that referendum only granted after we'd joined?

To be accurate the people of the UK were given an advisory referendum in 1975 on whether or not they wanted the UK to remain as a member of a trading bloc known as the EEC, after having already been taken into it without their consent either way by Heath.
How in 1975 could the people of the UK meaningly be asked to vote on whether or not they wanted the UK to be a member of an organization which would not even exist for another 18 years, let alone understand what an EU was, and what membership of this not yet extant organization would mean for them ?
Yet in the run up to the 2016 referendum we had idiots bleating there was not enough information available on which to make a decision, when in reality, the people of the UK had by 2016, 40 plus years of `actual' experience of what the EU was, on which to base their decision.
And yet after the first and only vote the people of the UK have ever been given on the matter of the UK`s membership of the EU, and after the government spent 9 million pounds of taxpayers cash on a pro remain leaflet, and allowed the remain side to spend twice as much as the leave side on its campaign, we had those who did not get the result `they' wanted doing their utmost to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum.
If the democratic wish of the majority voter is overturned, there will be consequences for democracy in the UK, as most will see that voting is just a waste of time, because whatever the result of a vote the EU, and its useful idiots in Westminster, and voter minority in the country will just twist the outcome to the one, they the minority wanted all along. After that, interesting times will almost certainly be upon us.

[deltashad]

What exactly is the Brexit stall all about?
Is there a program in place available to the public on the policies May is trying to implement? All I see are a lot of question avoidness as we've had for countless of years from webminster grown politicians.
Is there a dedicated group of people in place working on a time plan marking off the objectives completed and what is left to be resolved?
The management, agenda and progress behind this is unclear.
I feel sorry for May. She seems completely incapable and out of her depth as a spokesperson for this. I was never a fan of hers but this is irrevelant. Surely her job is hard enough without dealing with Brexit.

[PositronicRay]

deltashad said:

What exactly is the Brexit stall all about?
Is there a program in place available to the public on the policies May is trying to implement? All I see are a lot of question avoidness as we've had for countless of years from webminster grown politicians.
Is there a dedicated group of people in place working on a time plan marking off the objectives completed and what is left to be resolved?
The management, agenda and progress behind this is unclear.
I feel sorry for May. She seems completely incapable and out of her depth as a spokesperson for this. I was never a fan of hers but this is irrevelant. Surely her job is hard enough without dealing with Brexit.

Brexit was always going to be tricky, probably TM's only premiership opportunity. She took a step forward, while the sensible took a step back.

Ever heard of "The Peter Principle"