Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

[horsechoker]

Absolutely no chance imo, I know a tonne of leave voters that after 2 years, have finally realised they were completely bullshitted.

It'd be 60%+ to remain in a re-vote.

Whether or not a re-vote is democratic or not... hmmm, not sure, I just know the uninformed public should never have been the ones making this decision. Fecking Cameron and the conservatives.

I'd go for a reverse of the first result, 52% remain. A lot of people realise it was a sham but there's also a lot of "let's just get on with it"

 

[Sassy Colin]

Remarkable that the Tories are still the most popular party.

Look at the alternative

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

I'd go for a reverse of the first result, 52% remain. A lot of people realise it was a sham but there's also a lot of "let's just get on with it"

I think 40% of them, maybe push to 45% would keep up their "get on with it". As I say, I know a tonne who'd reverse their decision for sure.

The best way forward is for both houses to vote on the final outcome and make whatever decision they feel is best for the country, the last thing they should be doing is asking the uninformed all over again.

 

[2cents]

Some of these folk aren't right in the head

 

[17Larsson]

2016 was the second vote. The first vote was in the 70's when you voted to join the EU.
Best of three is fair

 

[Sweet Square]

Absolutely no chance imo, I know a tonne of leave voters that after 2 years, have finally realised they were completely bullshitted.

It'd be 60%+ to remain in a re-vote.

Whether or not a re-vote is democratic or not... hmmm, not sure, I just know the uninformed public should never have been the ones making this decision. Fecking Cameron and the conservatives.

From The Times today

Overall voters said that they regretted the outcome of the 2016 referendum but only by a small margin. Some 41 per cent said that Britain was right to vote to leave, while 47 per cent thought that the decision was wrong.

In a choice between no deal and having a second referendum, 43 per cent would prefer the referendum, while 38 per cent chose no deal. In a choice between Mrs May’s deal and the referendum, 34 per cent would prefer her deal, 42 per cent the referendum.

And from early this month

Second Brexit referendum too close to call:

https://www.politico.eu/article/pol...um-too-close-to-call-theresa-may-deal-remain/

Poll A GQRR survey finds no clear majority for any of the suggested questions and only a paper-thin margin for Remain if another in-out referendum were called.

For the growing numbers of people in the U.K. calling for a second referendum to reverse Brexit, public opinion carries a warning: Careful what you wish for.

Once considered a remote prospect, support has increased for a second referendum over recent months, as opinion polls show a small but significant increase in pessimism surrounding the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union.


With Prime Minister Theresa May facing an uphill struggle to strike a Brexit deal that can win majority support in the U.K. parliament, campaigners want a second vote to be held if MPs reject whatever deal she strikes with Brussels. The opposition Labour Party has said it would support such an option if May doesn’t call an election first.

But uncertainty remains over the terms of any second referendum and the question that would be put to the public, as a new poll by the U.S. campaign strategy firm GQR Research shared with POLITICO shows the outcome remains too close to call.

Asked to choose between accepting whatever Brexit deal the prime minister is able to negotiate or remaining in the EU — the referendum question favored by the People’s Vote campaign — respondents backed Remain by just 40 percent to 39 percent, with the rest undecided, the poll suggests. Faced with a choice between May’s deal and no deal, those surveyed backed the prime minister by 35 percent to 33 percent, but with nearly a third undecided.

 

[Sweet Square]

Some of these folk aren't right in the head

That's disgusting.

 

[Sassy Colin]

This is such a bizarre train of thought. Anti brexit party get no votes. Pro brexit party ahead in polls. brexit must not be important enuff for people, I cant think of any other explanation. Maybe you can enlighten me.

The thought of Corbyn in charge is just too much for some people.

And Labour is a Brexit party anyway.

 

[Silva]

the lib dems are anti brexit and right wing economically, if remain tories struggle to vote for the party that literally put them into power 8 years ago they're never going to vote for a left wing wing party

 

[Regulus Arcturus Black]

From The Times today

Doesn’t that directy contradict your claim that leave would win again

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Not my business but if you do a second referendum a lot of people will start to think that democracy is pointless. When you lose a vote in you need to accept it.

I don't think there will be a second referendum and I'm also not convinced the result would be that different as people haven't suddenly become intelligent.

However, in your opinion how long do you have to wait until people can change their mind. It's clearly not forever because the people overwhelmingly voted to join in 1975.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Not my business but if you do a second referendum a lot of people will start to think that democracy is pointless. When you lose a vote in you need to accept it.

There is a General Election every 5 years, this bullshit is a one off.

I don't see why, now people know what they are actually in for, they shouldn't get a 2nd bite of the cherry.

 

[Sweet Square]

Doesn’t that directy contradict your claim that leave would win again

I would image that like in the last referendum polling would change during campaigning. So for Remain to win it needs a bigger starting margin of more than a couple of points because leave would campaign on the whole stopping democracy thing.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

That's true but a second vote should not be entertained. We either have principles or we don't. We've seen many attempts to change peoples attitudes and it's not the people that is rotten. People fought and died at war to protect their lands and their people and the nations have been invaded covertly by playing on empathy using media and various propaganda. The borders need closing. Illegals deported. And we need to make our own laws. And then we need to take back (somehow) the ability to create money. So yeah it was an advistory vote but the spirit and the feeling was that there was no going back. What we see now are organised groups funded by whoever....and many people are very weak to all the fear mongering that goes round.

People that promote false ideology do not care about nations. If a nation cannot make it's own money, when in the past it could - you have to know why that is because only an idiot would allow anything or anyone to have power over it. You cannot be in debt to anyone if you make money. It's an important question. Because if you vote to leave, we the people have no say...and even when we do have a say it seems to me, some don't want us to have one.

Without arguing the points you made, do you want a no deal Brexit? Because if it is a no deal, none of what has been said is scaremongering, that's what is going to happen, even the government are saying so.

By the way any country in or out the EU or on the other side of the world can deport illegal immigrants. It's the UK government who have always been responsible, have they been doing their job?

 

[Sassy Colin]

Bear in mind that it was an advisory vote. It was non binding.

I keep seeing this, if so, why don't they just change their mind and cancel this madness?

 

[JPRouve]

I keep seeing this, if so, why don't they just change their mind and cancel this madness?

Initially, simple political weakness. Today, there is a withdrawal bill that has been voted, so they put themselves in a deeper hole. While democratically a second referendum would be fair, politically it would be suicidal.

 

[GloryHunter07]

That's true but a second vote should not be entertained. We either have principles or we don't. We've seen many attempts to change peoples attitudes and it's not the people that is rotten. People fought and died at war to protect their lands and their people and the nations have been invaded covertly by playing on empathy using media and various propaganda. The borders need closing. Illegals deported. And we need to make our own laws. And then we need to take back (somehow) the ability to create money. So yeah it was an advistory vote but the spirit and the feeling was that there was no going back. What we see now are organised groups funded by whoever....and many people are very weak to all the fear mongering that goes round.

People that promote false ideology do not care about nations. If a nation cannot make it's own money, when in the past it could - you have to know why that is because only an idiot would allow anything or anyone to have power over it. You cannot be in debt to anyone if you make money. It's an important question. Because if you vote to leave, we the people have no say...and even when we do have a say it seems to me, some don't want us to have one.

There is so much wrong with this comment i really dont know where to start

 

[Sassy Colin]

That's true but a second vote should not be entertained. We either have principles or we don't. We've seen many attempts to change peoples attitudes and it's not the people that is rotten. People fought and died at war to protect their lands and their people and the nations have been invaded covertly by playing on empathy using media and various propaganda. The borders need closing. Illegals deported. And we need to make our own laws. And then we need to take back (somehow) the ability to create money. So yeah it was an advistory vote but the spirit and the feeling was that there was no going back. What we see now are organised groups funded by whoever....and many people are very weak to all the fear mongering that goes round.

People that promote false ideology do not care about nations. If a nation cannot make it's own money, when in the past it could - you have to know why that is because only an idiot would allow anything or anyone to have power over it. You cannot be in debt to anyone if you make money. It's an important question. Because if you vote to leave, we the people have no say...and even when we do have a say it seems to me, some don't want us to have one.

I think people fought a war to have peace in Europe, no?

 

[berbatrick]

Some of these folk aren't right in the head

umm. wow.

 

[Zarlak]

Not my business but if you do a second referendum a lot of people will start to think that democracy is pointless. When you lose a vote in you need to accept it.

I think anyone with even the slightest degree of intelligence wouldn't think like that, they'd understand that making important decisions based on gross misrepresentation of facts and outright lies is a terrible idea, and that if anything not allowing somebody to change their mind after realising they've been lied to, would make democracy pointless. I can't think of anything more democratic than allowing a population the freedom to make a decision based on new facts, rather than what you're suggesting which seems to be 'tough shit, deal with it, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it' which doesn't seem very democratic at all.

 

[Charles Miller]

I don't think there will be a second referendum and I'm also not convinced the result would be that different as people haven't suddenly become intelligent.

However, in your opinion how long do you have to wait until people can change their mind. It's clearly not forever because the people overwhelmingly voted to join in 1975.

I dont think you should leave. You should use the power of the UK to fix the European Union. From an ecomomic point of view i think its a disaster. Majority of international markets are under nationalist pressures now. I dont think you can make a good trade deal with the United States and trying to compete against them its pointless anyway. The only part of the world where you can find an open market big enough to replace the EU its in Asia. But a trade deal with Asia is economic suicide.

 

[Mogget]

There is so much wrong woth this comment i really dont know where to start

You've clearly not read many of Striker's posts in the CE forum then. They're always a fecking wild ride from start to finish.

 

[Charles Miller]

I think anyone with even the slightest degree of intelligence wouldn't think like that, they'd understand that making important decisions based on gross misrepresentation of facts and outright lies is a terrible idea, and that if anything not allowing somebody to change their mind after realising they've been lied to, would make democracy pointless. I can't think of anything more democratic than allowing a population the freedom to make a decision based on new facts, rather than what you're suggesting which seems to be 'tough shit, deal with it, you made your bed and now you have to lie in it' which doesn't seem very democratic at all.

Ok, but you are wrong.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I dont think you should leave. You should use the power of the UK to fix the European Union. From an ecomomic point of view i think its a disaster. Majority of international markets are under nationalist pressures now. I dont think you can make a good trade deal with the United States and trying to compete against them its pointless anyway. The only part of the world where you can find an open market big enough to replace the EU its in Asia. But a trade deal with Asia is economic suicide.

Leaving with no deal is guaranteed economic suicide. Even with a deal it's going to be extremely tough.
Frictionless trade with the EU is absolutely vital because of how they are massively interlinked, it doesn't matter how many deals the UK get outside of the EU.

By the way, I've already left the UK and live in France in the EU.

My point was though that how long do people have to wait to change their mind. The problem is that when the UK has left it will be very difficult for the UK to rejoin in a short period of time especially when people who voted to leave realise they've been conned.

 

[Zarlak]

Ok, but you are wrong.

If you say so. If you think that making important life decisions based on lies and misrepresentations is a good idea then all power to you. And if you think that forcing people to stick with something after realising they've been lied to is democratic, then again, power to you but in my opinion it's you that's wrong. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to live with something, and there is everything democratic about allowing a population to fluidly make informed decisions based on evidence that comes to light.

Out of interest, what is your definition of democracy? And how does what I posted, contradict it in any way?

 

[Charles Miller]

Leaving with no deal is guaranteed economic suicide. Even with a deal it's going to be extremely tough.
Frictionless trade with the EU is absolutely vital because of how they are massively interlinked, it doesn't matter how many deals the UK get outside of the EU.

By the way, I've already left the UK and live in France in the EU.

My point was though that how long do people have to wait to change their mind. The problem is that when the UK has left it will be very difficult for the UK to rejoin in a short period of time especially when people who voted to leave realise they've been conned.

In my opinion a vote in this subject should be one in the lifetime of a generation. But maybe i'm wrong, everything in the world is faster now.

 

[Charles Miller]

If you say so. If you think that making important life decisions based on lies and misrepresentations is a good idea then all power to you. And if you think that forcing people to stick with something after realising they've been lied to is democratic, then again, power to you but in my opinion it's you that's wrong. There is nothing democratic about forcing people to live with something, and there is everything democratic about allowing a population to fluidly make informed decisions based on evidence that comes to light.

Out of interest, what is your definition of democracy? And how does what I posted, contradict it in any way?

My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

In my opinion a vote in this subject should be one in the lifetime of a generation. But maybe i'm wrong, everything in the world is faster now.

Say the UK leave without a deal, which Brexiters now insist was what they voted for, which isn't what was said at the time of the referendum and is not even true now because the government have been trying to negotiate a deal for the last two years with the EU.

No deal is exactly that, no agreements at all about anything. If that happens the UK will be paralysed in April. I have a feeling that even the Brexiters will be demanding a change of decision before the end of next year, not wait another 40 years to reverse that decision.

 

[GloryHunter07]

You've clearly not read many of Striker's posts in the CE forum then. They're always a fecking wild ride from start to finish.

I count myself lucky then!

 

[Steven Seagull]

Enjoyed the march yesterday. Lots of great points put forward by the ambitious leaders which I hope will be looked at in the important months ahead

 

[Paul the Wolf]

My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.

To convince Brexiters , they are not listening or wanting to understand. If they really understood what the EU was about and how it works and if they understood what the consequences of their vote. Even then if they still hated the EU and wanted to leave then they had to understand what would happen if they did leave. All they say is you are scaremongering. It's not an opinion of what might happen. It is guaranteed.

If they want to ruin the country while claiming they are patriots is extremely unintelligent. If they can't be bothered to be informed before they vote then that is also unintelligent.

 

[Sassy Colin]

Initially, simple political weakness. Today, there is a withdrawal bill that has been voted, so they put themselves in a deeper hole. While democratically a second referendum would be fair, politically it would be suicidal.

I just like to go to France on my holidays

 

[Stanley Road]

If you hadn't noticed 95% of Labour MP's are pro-Remain but because Mr Limp Lettuce doesn't like the EU if you vote Labour you are only voting for what the Limp Lettuce wants. The UK has the worst PM in living memory but somehow the Limp Lettuce can't even overtake her in the polls and as he's pro-Brexit as well, why hasn't he overtaken her? Even the majority of Tory MPs are pro-Remain.
It's wonderful how democratic the British system is.

You know and I know that the LibDems will never be the governing party in the UK.
I haven't even said that the majority of the British people don't want Brexit, I'm saying in a years time they will be sorely regretting it if they leave with no deal, which is what they supposedly voted for.

All I'm seeing and hearing Paul is that there is an anti brexit party out there that no one wants to vote for. Please help me understand why.

 

[Stanley Road]

I just like to go to France on my holidays

You probably still can after your visa application is accepted.

 

[matherto]

Was trying to work out what agreements and treaties we had in place already so that no matter what outcome we get by 29/3/19 we'd know what we had and after asking a question on another forum I was given this link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ree-trade-agreements-if-theres-no-brexit-deal

A scenario in which the UK leaves the EU without agreement (a ‘no deal’ scenario) remains unlikely given the mutual interests of the UK and the EU in securing a negotiated outcome.

Negotiations are progressing well and both we and the EU continue to work hard to seek a positive deal. However, it’s our duty as a responsible government to prepare for all eventualities, including ‘no deal’, until we can be certain of the outcome of those negotiations.

For 2 years, the government has been implementing a significant programme of work to ensure the UK will be ready from day 1 in all scenarios, including a potential ‘no deal’ outcome in March 2019.

It has always been the case that as we get nearer to March 2019, preparations for a no deal scenario would have to be accelerated. Such an acceleration does not reflect an increased likelihood of a ‘no deal’ outcome. Rather it is about ensuring our plans are in place in the unlikely scenario that they need to be relied upon.

This series of technical notices sets out information to allow businesses and citizens to understand what they would need to do in a ‘no deal’ scenario, so they can make informed plans and preparations.

This guidance is part of that series.

Also included is an overarching framing notice explaining the government’s overarching approach to preparing the UK for this outcome in order to minimise disruption and ensure a smooth and orderly exit in all scenarios.

We are working with the devolved administrations on technical notices and we will continue to do so as plans develop.

Purpose
The purpose of this notice is to inform businesses and other interested parties about the government’s plans to ensure continuity for the UK’s existing trade agreements with partners outside the EU if we do not reach agreement with the EU on the terms of our withdrawal prior to 29 March 2019.

While the UK government is confident that it will agree a deal and a time-limited implementation period, as a responsible government it will continue to prepare for all scenarios, including the unlikely outcome that the UK leaves the EU on 29 March 2019 without a deal.

This is contingency planning for a scenario that the UK government does not expect to happen, but people should be reassured that the government is taking a responsible approach.

Before 29 March 2019
As a member of the EU, the UK currently participates in around 40 free trade agreements with over 70 countries. These free trade agreements cover a wide variety of relationships, including:

• Economic Partnership Agreements with developing nations
• Association Agreements, which cover broader economic and political cooperation
• trade agreements with countries that are closely aligned with the EU, such as Turkey and Switzerland
• more conventional free trade agreements

In 2017, ONS data showed that trade with third countries with EU free trade agreements accounted for around 12% of the UK’s total trade. Businesses in the UK, EU and partner countries are eligible for a range of preferential market access opportunities under the terms of these free trade agreements. These can include, but are not limited to:

• preferential duties for goods. This includes reductions in import tariff rates across a wide range of products, quotas for reduced or nil rates of payable duties, and quotas for more relaxed rules of origin requirements.
• enhanced market access for service providers.
• access to public procurement opportunities across a range of sectors.
• improved protections for intellectual property.

For continuity and stability for businesses, consumers and investors, we are committed to ensuring these benefits are maintained, providing a smooth transition as we leave the EU.

We are currently working with partner countries to prepare for a range of possible scenarios to maintain existing trading relationships.

After March 2019 if there’s no-deal
During any implementation period, arrangements would be put in place with partner countries so that the UK is treated as an EU member state for the purposes of international agreements, including trade agreements.

In the event of a ‘no deal’, there will be no implementation period. In this scenario, the government will seek to bring into force bilateral UK-third country agreements from exit day, or as soon as possible thereafter.

These new agreements will replicate existing EU agreements and the same preferential effects with third countries as far as possible, whilst making the technical changes needed to ensure the agreements operate in a bilateral context. Ministers and officials are engaging regularly with partner countries to complete this work. When we reach final agreements with partner countries will depend on our ongoing discussions with them.

Should arrangements to maintain particular preferences in a no deal scenario not be in place on exit day, trade would then take place on a ‘Most-Favoured Nation’ (MFN) basis, which is sometimes referred to as ‘World Trade Organization (WTO) Terms’, until such a new arrangement has been implemented. Under WTO rules, the principle of MFN treatment means that the same rate of duty, on the same good, must be charged to all WTO members equally. This principle is subject to certain exceptions, including if a free trade agreement is in place. For services, the MFN principle means WTOmembers are required to grant treatment no less favourable to services and service suppliers of any other WTO member, than that which they grant to like suppliers from any other country.

In leaving the EU, the UK is regularising the terms of our WTO membership because our commitments are currently contained within the EU schedules. We are working closely with WTO members to ensure a simple, fair, and transparent transition in establishing the UK’s independent WTO schedules, in a manner that minimises disruption to our trading relationships.

The UK is already a full member of the WTO, and negotiations are ongoing for us to become independent members of the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement, on the basis of its current commitments as a member of the EU. Separate to seeking continuity for existing free trade agreements, powers in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 enable the UK to put in place a UK unilateral trade preference scheme for developing countries as the UK leaves the EU. In the first instance, it is intended that this will provide the same level of access as provided by the current EU trade preference scheme. This will maintain tariff free access for Least Developed Countries and continue to offer generous tariff reductions to around 25 other developing countries.

Implications
In the event of a ‘no deal’, EU trade agreements will cease to apply to the UK when we leave the EU.

Our intention is that the effects of new bilateral agreements will be identical to, or substantially the same as, the EU agreements they replace. However, users of current EU free trade agreements should be aware that, in contrast to the current situation and during any Implementation Period, there may be practical changes to how they make use of preferences under these new agreements. For example, UK and EU content will be considered distinct, and each new agreement will individually specify what origin designations may be used to qualify for preferences. We will aim to limit these changes as far as possible, but the final form of new agreements and any resulting changes will depend on ongoing discussions with our trading partners. The Trade Bill contains a reporting requirement stating that the government will publish a report before these new free trade agreements are ratified on any significant changes to the new trade-related provisions.

Where arrangements to maintain particular preferences in a no-deal scenario are not in place by exit day, trade would take place on WTO terms. Under such terms, traders would pay the applied MFN tariff. This is the tariff applied equally to all countries in the absence of preferential arrangements. In the event of no-deal, the government will determine and publish a new UK MFN tariff schedule before we leave the EU. Information on the current tariff rates are freely available to view in the UK’s applied goods schedule and can be found on the UK Government’s Tariff Look Up tool. Further practical information on arrangements for the border and relevant contact information for guidance can be found in:

• Classifying your goods in the UK Trade Tariff if there’s no Brexit deal
• Trading with the EU if there’s no Brexit deal

The specific commitments for services trade that WTO members apply to trading partners, independently of any preferential arrangements, are set out in each Member’s schedule of commitments under the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Some countries have liberalised beyond these specific commitments.

For more information on the WTO, visit the WTO website.

This notice is meant for guidance only. You should consider whether you need separate professional advice before making specific preparations.

It is part of the government’s ongoing programme of planning for all possible outcomes. We expect to negotiate a successful deal with the EU.

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein are party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area and participate in other EU arrangements. As such, in many areas, these countries adopt EU rules. Where this is the case, these technical notices may also apply to them, and EEA businesses and citizens should consider whether they need to take any steps to prepare for a ‘no deal’ scenario.

The language surely needs updating to reflect that we're now in late October 2018 and we need some things solidly in place and in public view so we know what we're working with come leaving day?

Because right now after reading that, it suggests that all the treaties we have as part of the EU are null and void and we haven't actually put anything in place yet to replace them, just that we're endeavouring to do so. It says that no deal is an unlikely event and perhaps it is but don't we need the safety net of knowing what we've got in case it does happen?

Come no deal on 29/3/19 our planes won't be able to leave the country nor will planes be allowed to come in, same for boats and trains until such time as those agreements are in place right? And people want no deal? Technically beyond the laws of the land saying we can't kill people and that side of things, we can't actually DO anything? We'd have no economy beyond the pure trade in the UK (can that happen with no trade deals?) because we can't get goods in and out of the country? Or do we automatically go to WTO rules on that day? I'm sure I read somewhere that WTO rules had to be negotiated too?

EDIT - http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/no-deal-the-wto-option/

This shows we automatically go to WTO rules.

Basing all this off this article explaining the treaties and agreements we currently have that we're giving up:

https://www.ft.com/content/f1435a8e-372b-11e7-bce4-9023f8c0fd2e

 

[Zarlak]

My problem with your previous comment was your presumption that only people who agree with your position are intelligent. I can't see how it would help you to convince brexiters if you are English.

I dont think i can define democracy to you. I work in a bank and i teach Physics to high school kids. Philosophy its not my field.

If you can't define your version of democracy, then to be absolutely fair you can't tell me that mine is wrong. There's also no link between philosophy and defining democracy, I'm not really sure why you said that. I'm yet to meet anybody who says that philosophy is their field yet I can probably gather definitions of democracy from the first 100 people I ask on the street. They might not be right, but they could and would still take a stab at answering the question. I was just interested in why what I painted as democracy would differ from your opinion on what it meant.

I also didn't say that only people who agree with my position are intelligent, that's somewhat twisted as if I'd made a categorical statement. I said that I didn't think that anybody intelligent would say democracy was pointless if we had a second vote. It's an opinion, that I then quantified with why I believe that and if I was shown wrong and people did say that, I'd be happy to discuss it with them. There is no basis for that statement you mentioned to be made which is basically saying that doing democratic things makes democracy pointless. What would make democracy pointless, was if we voted for something and then they just didn't do it in spite of our vote. If they gave us a democratic choice and we voted, and then it transpired that we were lied to, we voted again and voted differently, that is democracy.

 

[Green_Red]

Voting once on an issue doesn't mean you can never vote on it again. As the Leave campaigners made clear before the initial vote.

If enough has changed in the meantime to make a material difference to the decision then there's no reason not to have another vote. People can always vote leave again if they maintain it's the correct decision in the face of all that's happened since, or if they object to a second vote in principle.

The only question ethically is whether enough has materially changed since the first vote to justify a second.

Excellent point. If the leave had lost you can guarantee that there would have been another referendum at some point.

 

[Green_Red]

Not my business but if you do a second referendum a lot of people will start to think that democracy is pointless. When you lose a vote in you need to accept it.

If you call me up in the morning and ask me what the weather is and I say "it's freezing out there, wear your winter clothes", if you took my advice and then walked out of yoyr house and realised it's 28°C and sunny, would you leave your winter clothes on just because you wanted to stick to your original decision?

Democracy is exactly about stopping this type of stuff from happening. I think it says more about our society that we allow falsehoods to be disseminated in our public sphere.

Nothing that relates to public issues, particularly elections and referendums, that isn't 100% true shouldnt be allowed to be published by law. Any 'fact' should be 100% verifiable, none of this "sources" crap.

 

[RW2]

Excellent point. If the leave had lost you can guarantee that there would have been another referendum at some point.

. . . . which is precisely why, paradoxically, the leavers winning is probably in Britain's best interests.

Most of them are a shower of loons but winning has exposed them. They've no clue, no plan, can't agree among themselves, and some are only in it for the battle to inherit the tory leadership crown.

Britain needed to hear from these crazies, and now they have, because it just would have carried on and on otherwise.

Referendums are an absolutely ghastly way of deciding such an issue as your average voter is more interested in Phil Mitchell in Eastenders than issues of trade with the EU. Such a volatile issue brought every racist out of the woodwork also. The atmosphere is sour, and will be for a long time.

 

[RW2]

Absolutely no chance imo, I know a tonne of leave voters that after 2 years, have finally realised they were completely bullshitted.

It'd be 60%+ to remain in a re-vote.

Whether or not a re-vote is democratic or not... hmmm, not sure, I just know the uninformed public should never have been the ones making this decision. Fecking Cameron and the conservatives.

But you can't reason with the hardline brexiteers. They despise the European Union which they see as an emerging superstate (which it is) whilst they long for the days of the Empire. But those days are over, and they cannot accept it.

They're asking for the impossible because they can never be satisfied.