Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
vidic blood & sand said:
No that's nonsense. To overturn a democratic vote is very serious. There's nothing wrong in having a second vote, and if remain wins, then the result should be honoured by leavers. However, that doesn't stop people being against EU membership.
Click to expand...
They're not overturning anything. Brexiteers have had two and a half years to try leave the EU (as they promised) and the most they seem to be able to muster is a deal that will effectively mean the UK don't really leave yet still end up worse off. Why shouldn't people get another vote now that it's so apparent that nothing has turned out remotely like what they were promised back in 2016.

And lest we forget that leave won by less than 2%. It's not like it was a resounding victory that represented the overwhelming "will of the people" as you say. I see nothing controversial about putting the vote to the people again 30 months after it barely passed.

In Ireland we rejected the Lisbon treaty and then had another vote 14 months later that was accepted because only after we originally voted no did it become apparent exactly what we were doing by voting no. What's the difference to this? It's not even a vote that amends your constitution!
 
Massive Spanner said:
They're not overturning anything. Brexiteers have had two and a half years to try leave the EU (as they promised) and the most they seem to be able to muster is a deal that will effectively mean the UK don't really leave yet still end up worse off. Why shouldn't people get another vote now that it's so apparent that nothing has turned out remotely like what they were promised back in 2016.

And lest we forget that leave won by less than 2%. It's not like it was a resounding victory that represented the overwhelming "will of the people" as you say. I see nothing controversial about putting the vote to the people again 30 months after it barely passed.

In Ireland we rejected the Lisbon treaty and then had another vote 14 months later that was accepted because only after we originally voted no did it become apparent exactly what we were doing by voting no. What's the difference to this? It's not even a vote that amends your constitution!
Click to expand...

The train of discussion was to do with someone who mentioned a possible revoke of article 50. This couldn't just be done by overturning the democratic vote.
And as I said, there's nothing wrong with having another vote. I'm all for it. If the majority of people in the UK now want to remain in the EU especially after the government's shambolic attempts at trying to get a deal, now is the time to put the question back out there.
 
vidic blood & sand said:
The train of discussion was to do with someone who mentioned a possible revoke of article 50. This couldn't just be done by overturning the democratic vote.
And as I said, there's nothing wrong with having another vote. I'm all for it. If the majority of people in the UK now want to remain in the EU especially after the government's shambolic attempts at trying to get a deal, now is the time to put the question back out there.
Click to expand...
Ah ok, fair enough. That I'd agree with.
 
I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

 
Ubik said:
I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

Click to expand...


You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.
 
Cheesy said:
You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.
Click to expand...
Raab is apparently now one of the favourites to take over from May. Someone who recently said he'd only just realised how important Dover-Calais is to trade.

We're genuinely screwed.
 
Cheesy said:
You usually assume most politicians you disagree with aren't necessarily idiots but just have a different outlook on things compared to you. This whole experience has been rather revealing. Plenty of deliberate misleading going on, of course, but it does appear that a significant number of MP's are genuinely just a bit thick.
Click to expand...
This isn't a new phenomenon. Politicians have always been the crop of the upper classes who were too thick to take over daddy's business. What's happened in recent times is that the "respect the leaders" bootlicking has started to crumble and their idiocy is on open display.
 
Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.
 
RedChip said:
Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.
Click to expand...
To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
RedChip said:
Why is it Brexit is the only 'will of the people' vote that cannot be overturned or, at least, tested by another 'will of the people' vote? This is what happens with most other things people vote for. It is such a pathetic excuse for politicians to hide behind.
Click to expand...
They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.
 
sun_tzu said:
To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
Click to expand...
AV ref had a supermajority for No, 75 single market ref got a supermajority for yes. Indyref was a ten point win for No and that's not ended the discussion. EUref was a 3.78 point win for leave and has caused a pretty much unrelenting mentalness for two and a half years, so I think this one has a decent argument for re-running compared to the others.

US democracy is a basket case in a lot of ways, but I think requiring constitutional changes to face a bigger hurdle than pure majority consent is looking quite well justified.
 
Sweet Square said:
They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Then they're fecking idiots.
 
Sweet Square said:
They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.
Click to expand...

Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.
 
Cheesy said:
Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.

I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.
Click to expand...
Not that strange at all when you think about it.
 
Ft
Sweet Square said:
They aren't hiding hiding behind it. There isn't the voter movement be hide a 2nd referendum to force the politicians to back it. At the moment with all the shit show of the last two years Remain has a 5 point lead in the polls(Pretty much the same as when the 2016 referendum was called, I think).

No one really gives a shit about staying or leaving the EU.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.
 
RedChip said:
Ft

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.
Click to expand...

Polling on the EU is a weird one, looking back through it. Generally Remain was ahead (especially after 2015 when the Tories won the election and said they'd hold a referendum) but there were periods when leaving appeared to have a lot of support. One Survation poll from November 2014 had Leave winning 54-31! That was probably an anomaly but plenty of others in the same period did indicate strong sentiment for leaving.
 
Ubik said:
US democracy is a basket case in a lot of ways, but I think requiring constitutional changes to face a bigger hurdle than pure majority consent is looking quite well justified.
Click to expand...

Indeed a threshold would seem logical...

That said if the government said look clearly we have learned our lesson from the last referendum and therefore we are inserting a minimum majority of 60% (or 66% or 75% etc) must vote to remain this time or we carry out the vote from the first referendum and leave 29th march regardless Then I'm sure that would be seen as unfair by the remain side?

Sadly it's a divisive issue and the more it's discussed the more entrenched Most opinions seem to become

I honestly can't even think of a question that would be accepted by both sides at the mlment
 
RedChip said:
Ft

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.
Click to expand...

Really? Leaving aside the UK's longstanding euroscepticism, UKIP actually came third, then second, then first in European elections between 2004 and 2014. The UK then willfully voted for a party & leader that was promising a referendum. That's hardly no voter movement. If people vote for things then those things might happen.
 
sun_tzu said:
To be fair they didn't re-run the alternative vote referendum when we got a hung parliment... Nor did they re-run the Scottish indy ref even though it was close...
Looking at all the referendums we have ever had you have to admit it would be fairly exceptional to re run it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendums_in_the_United_Kingdom
Click to expand...
Agree with this but also think Brexit is a special case and it was only a marginal majority. Given how consequential Brexit will be, it seems crazy that the electorate cannot be given a second chance to confirm if this is what they really want. Is this how democracy is intended to work? You get one chance and one chance only? If you should regret your choice, tough.
 
Ubik said:
AV ref had a supermajority for No, 75 single market ref got a supermajority for yes. Indyref was a ten point win for No and that's not ended the discussion. EUref was a 3.78 point win for leave and has caused a pretty much unrelenting mentalness for two and a half years, so I think this one has a decent argument for re-running compared to the others.

US democracy is a basket case in a lot of ways, but I think requiring constitutional changes to face a bigger hurdle than pure majority consent is looking quite well justified.
Click to expand...

I dunno, it's a nice idea in principle but I'd argue it can end up being overly conservative in how it can prohibit necessary changes to society that lack just enough support to pass through. If, say, 60% of the country want something to happen but can't reach a two-thirds threshold then you're in a situation where the majority of the country clearly want something to be implemented, and will continue pushing for it to happen until it does. The issue doesn't really go away (if it's important) but just finds itself being continually contested instead. Imagine if, for example, a two thirds threshold had been there in 2016 and Leave had won with 58%. Farage and co would've been outraged and wouldn't have stopped going on about it.

For me the problem with the EU ref was that the question itself was so ill-defined as to what Brexit would mean, allowing people to project their own perceptions onto the vote. The question should have specifically been either to Leave but remain in the SM/CU, or leave everything. The problem is the Leave side would've never opted for that because they know it would've failed: the latter would've been too minimal to campaign strongly on, while the latter would've been rejected as being too radical.
 
sullydnl said:
Really? Leaving aside the UK's longstanding euroscepticism, UKIP actually came third, then second, then first in European elections between 2004 and 2014. The UK then willfully voted for a party & leader that was promising a referendum. That's hardly no voter movement. If people vote for things then those things might happen.
Click to expand...
Yeah, really.

There sure was Euroscepticism, but it was never a majority sentiment, a ground swell. Leave winning was, to most, unexpected. If that was really voter movement for the referendum, then there is surely even more voter movement for a second referendum?
 
RedChip said:
Agree with this but also think Brexit is a special case and it was only a marginal majority. Given how consequential Brexit will be, it seems crazy that the electorate cannot be given a second chance to confirm if this is what they really want. Is this how democracy is intended to work? You get one chance and one chance only? If you should regret your choice, tough.
Click to expand...
I personally agree... I just think some Calling for a second referendum don't realise how divisive it would be... How hard it would be to structure... how unusual it would be not to enact the first referendum and mostly just how close it would probably be... Then what round 3?
 
Cheesy said:
Movement has been scarce but support for remaining within the EU has generally been higher than support for leaving for most of this year. That's fairly significant considering we're currently in the process of leaving, with that same process being highly criticised. It's also fairly notable considering neither of the main two parties are advocating remaining within the EU currently: the government continue to advocate a well-managed exit (even if they're incapable of it) and the opposition are at best tacitly wary of leaving, and generally supportive of doing so.
.
Click to expand...

But both are polling at around 40%. If people actually care about staying in the EU or changing both parties stances than there's this awful little liberal party that people can vote for. But no one is.
Cheesy said:
I do think there's something strange in those on the left defending Labour's stance on this based on polling when it was perfectly convenient for that to be ignored when Corbyn first came to power. Or when the country was keen on austerity. Obviously Labour need to be smart in their actions and there are risks in going against the vote itself, but the consistent argument from them under Corbyn has been to try and change the outlook of the British public on key issues instead of moving to the centre to accommodate such views. Yet on Brexit, an issue which will inherently impact everything a Corbyn government wants to do, they're fine to use the polling argument.
Click to expand...

Your right but there's nothing particular left wing about the EU at all, the left isn't going to get be hide something like those awful god EU marches. So there's simply isn't the energy for changing people minds on EU membership as there was with the fight against austerity(Your pretty much asking the left to actively campaign to join a club that will completely feck you over once your in government.)


RedChip said:
Ft

Well, I don't recall there being much of a voter movement for Brexit before Brexit and yet we had the referendum.
Click to expand...
UKIP won about 1 million votes in the European election and more important the tories won a election with manifesto that included a referendum on EU membership.
 
RedChip said:
Yeah, really.

There sure was Euroscepticism, but it was never a majority sentiment, a ground swell. Leave winning was, to most, unexpected. If that was really voter movement for the referendum, then there is surely even more voter movement for a second referendum?
Click to expand...

I think people repeatedly voting for parties that either advocate Brexit or promise the opportunity for Brexit is a fair sign of voter movement, a sign validated by Leave then actually winning the popular vote when it came around. I mean people could have voted for something else at any point but they didn't.

As for a Leave win being unexpected, it shouldn't have been that unexpected given that polling prior to the vote showed that there was a very real possibility of that outcome happening. If people were deeply surprised it was because they misread the situation.

There may well be a similar sentiment for reversing the vote. Unfortunately no major party seems keen to give a re-vote the platform that the Tories gave to Brexit.
 
Cheesy said:
I dunno, it's a nice idea in principle but I'd argue it can end up being overly conservative in how it can prohibit necessary changes to society that lack just enough support to pass through. If, say, 60% of the country want something to happen but can't reach a two-thirds threshold then you're in a situation where the majority of the country clearly want something to be implemented, and will continue pushing for it to happen until it does. The issue doesn't really go away (if it's important) but just finds itself being continually contested instead. Imagine if, for example, a two thirds threshold had been there in 2016 and Leave had won with 58%. Farage and co would've been outraged and wouldn't have stopped going on about it.

For me the problem with the EU ref was that the question itself was so ill-defined as to what Brexit would mean, allowing people to project their own perceptions onto the vote. The question should have specifically been either to Leave but remain in the SM/CU, or leave everything. The problem is the Leave side would've never opted for that because they know it would've failed: the latter would've been too minimal to campaign strongly on, while the latter would've been rejected as being too radical.
Click to expand...
I agree with your worries tbf. I just think something so deliberately polarising as a referendum, on something so fundamental to a country as how it functions legally, politically and economically, is always going to lead to the kind of ructions and ridiculousness that we have now. We're 6 months from leaving and it gets worse by the week.

I realise you're likely thinking of Scotland and that it would make independence that much harder, and it's an interesting case given the SNP are literally a party founded upon the idea and had won parliamentary elections multiple times before the vote. It's tough to strike a balance, but it just seems to me that the current way of doing it is insane :lol: It would also doom any chances of electoral reform here, but let's be honest, that's not happening anyway.
 
Sweet Square said:
But both are polling at around 40%. If people actually care about staying in the EU or changing both parties stances than there's this awful little liberal party that people can vote for. But no one is.


Your right but there's nothing particular left wing about the EU at all, the left isn't going to get be hide something like those awful god EU marches. So there's simply isn't the energy for changing people minds on EU membership as there was with the fight against austerity(Your pretty much asking the left to actively campaign to join a club that will completely feck you over once your in government.)



UKIP won about 1 million votes in the European election and more important the tories won a election with manifesto that included a referendum on EU membership.
Click to expand...
UKIP winning a million votes isn't a voter movement. I don't think Tories won in 2015 because they had the referendum in the manifesto.
 
sullydnl said:
Really? Leaving aside the UK's longstanding euroscepticism, UKIP actually came third, then second, then first in European elections between 2004 and 2014. The UK then willfully voted for a party & leader that was promising a referendum. That's hardly no voter movement. If people vote for things then those things might happen.
Click to expand...

MEP elections had shockingly low turnout though didn’t they? The eurospectics were mainly the only ones who cared enough to vote, because we did such a shit job of explaining to people what the EU actually does for us.
 
Ubik said:
I don't wish to panic anyone, but I just had a horrible thought that those who've been fighting to leave the EU for most of their political lives may actually be morons

Click to expand...


According to Brexiters the UK never have had any representation in the EU, it's all run by Bureaucrats, not the time to suddenly realise they did.
 
RedChip said:
UKIP winning a million votes isn't a voter movement. I don't think Tories won in 2015 because they had the referendum in the manifesto.
Click to expand...
So a anti eu party winning seats and a election wining manifesto that included a eu referendum isn't movement ?
 
Ken’s right. Barely anyone voted in the MEP elections besides those with a vested interest in Europe i.e. UKIP voters.

I have never voted in a European election and don’t recall ever even knowing when a vote happened.
 
Sweet Square said:
So a anti eu party winning seats and a election wining manifesto that included a eu referendum isn't movement ?
Click to expand...

It is, but it was fuelled by both Labour and the Tories using the EU as a punching bag for everything, especially blaming it for voters concerns about immigration and both parties failure to take sensible and legal measures which other EU states did.
 
Sweet Square said:
So a anti eu party winning seats and a election wining manifesto that included a eu referendum isn't movement ?
Click to expand...
No. Not in my view. If your argument is there was a movement for a Brexit referendum, then there is also a movement for a second referendum, if not more so.
 
sun_tzu said:
I personally agree... I just think some Calling for a second referendum don't realise how divisive it would be... How hard it would be to structure... how unusual it would be not to enact the first referendum and mostly just how close it would probably be... Then what round 3?
Click to expand...

Why would it be hard to structure? Two part question, part one ‘Do you want to leave the EU or remain?’ part two ‘If Leave do want to leave with May’s deal or leave with no deal’. Simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.