Talk

Advanced search

To ask if you see a second EU ref as a sleight against democracy?

(198 Posts)
VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 12:21:08

Is there anyone that thinks that the 2016 outcome should be respected regardless of anything else? If so - how do you square that with the fact that Theresa May has tested her 'exit' deal to Parliament twice and both times been shot down?

How can this be the 'WILL OF THE PEOPLE' given the initial result was 48%/52%.

Just curious where people now stand given we are 9 days away from Brexit. No judgement here just curious how people are interpreting the various outcomes and ongoings...

Motherofcreek Wed 20-Mar-19 17:02:56

How many votes are we going have as it will be close again? If remain pip the post should we get a leaver supporter to completely fuck the process up? Or should we then ask for a best out of three?

TM is an absolute embarrassment and needs to step down immediately

Absolutely sick to death of it.

Jaxhog Wed 20-Mar-19 17:03:48

I am sick and tired of the Brexit mob saying that the 'majority of people' voted for Brexit. They didn't. It was certainly the majority of those who voted, but NOT the majority of people. Non-voters did not vote to change the status quo i.e. to leave the EU. Therefore the percentage of people voting for Brexit was 38%.

The error was in not stating that we would only Brexit if the majority of people DID vote to leave. At the moment we are being lead by the will of less than 40% of the people.

Fair? I don't think so.
Reasonable? Absolutely not.
Totally crazy? Yes!

lovelygreenjumper Wed 20-Mar-19 17:05:39

I think that the information most people had to base their vote in at the first referendum was at best too little and in some cases very misleading. In addition to the fact that we are only now starting to see exactly what a 'leave' deal/no deal might look like, I can't see how anyone can say that giving the people a second chance to have their say is undemocratic. After all, if 52% of the people wanted to leave and still want to leave, asking again will not change things.

MorrisZapp Wed 20-Mar-19 17:08:49

So.

If Scotland votes very narrowly in favour of independence in the next few years, but the administration of the subsequent divorce proves tricky and laborious, will independence supporters be in favour of further democracy at that point, with a view to going back on the decision to go independent?

CarpetWasntRolledOut Wed 20-Mar-19 17:10:38

youtu.be/Atku5LWhjog

In case anyone hasn't seen it.

mummymeister Wed 20-Mar-19 17:12:38

Jaxhog and lovelygreenjumper - both remainers both asking for another vote?

Jaxhog if the vote was flawed then the MP's should not have voted in Article 50. If the system is flawed then why do we accept it for the General and council elections across the country? We had a vote on PR remember. That was voted down.

Cookit Wed 20-Mar-19 17:13:25

Therefore the percentage of people voting for Brexit was 38%.

This I don’t understand at all. If you don’t vote you don’t get a say.
We don’t presume to think what the people who don’t vote in general elections think. If an MP wins a constituency they are usually also winning with 30-40% because loads of people don’t vote. Tough shit, that MP won a majority of the people who bothered to vote.

As for the fact that May’s deal keeps getting rejected. I mean, this may have something to do with the fact that MPs of all sides have been utterly useless, are completely divided and generally won’t consider any outcome that isn’t their preferred stance.

Finally, I also don’t buy the “no one knew what they were voting for / what Brexit meant” argument either. So because you can’t foresee what a plausible agreement would look like, it’s impossible to ever have a vote? So it should be impossible to leave the EU? What about the Scottish referendum? No one knew hypothetically what independence would look like. There was still a vote.

I voted Remain and wish the outcome had been different FYI.

mummymeister Wed 20-Mar-19 17:14:07

Morriszapp - all voting results should be treated equally but some are more equal than others !!

Iggly Wed 20-Mar-19 17:30:26

yes we do Iggly. and that is something that we negotiate once we come out. you are right it is a "future deal" not a deal for now. we come out first. we negotiate after. Not just with the EU but with everyone else

You demonstrate your naivety if you think we can just leave then negotiate. That makes absolutely no sense. Trading will not stop - so you need to know what happens the day after we leave.

It’s impractical otherwise

Lifeover Wed 20-Mar-19 17:42:10

Yes. Nothing new has come to light. The EU is still the same as it was. No one talked about leaving with a deal, the deal only sets out the rules during negotiations not relationship with the EU will finally be negotiated. So we will be asked to vote on exactly the same thing twice. We were not asked to vote on the poor representations by both sides in the original vote we were asked whether we wanted to stay in the EU. We,as a nation, said no.

Like Mays deal regarding the negotiating period after we leave we shouldn’t be asked to vote on the same thing again in such a short space of time.

It’s about time we left because only then can we start to negotiate our long term relationship with the EU. It’s taking up too much time when we should be focusing on important matters like health, welfare and education.

The country is struggling whilst we are dealing with petulant toddlers insisting they know best and having a strop because they didn’t get what they wanted

Lifeover Wed 20-Mar-19 17:45:14

Iggly it’s not naive it’s fact. Whilst we remain in the EU the EU can not negotiate deals with us as a member state. A deal will potentially allow us to continue trading with it on the current terms during the negoting period or no deal would prob give us wto terms upto the point we negotiate other terms.

Lifeover Wed 20-Mar-19 17:47:42

Jaxhog. Well what is fair to say is that the minority of people voted to stay in the EU

SheRaTheAllPowerful Wed 20-Mar-19 17:48:57

As a staunch remainer if there was a second vote that had a larger margin to leave I would totally accept it.

I definitely think a second referendum is needed and would respect the result.

Songsofexperience Wed 20-Mar-19 17:49:39

Dragging the country into No Deal without consulting the people is a sleight of democracy.

Motherofcreek Wed 20-Mar-19 17:49:42

How the hell can you presume what the non voters wanted? confused

All that mattered was the people that actually voted.

Figmentofmyimagination Wed 20-Mar-19 17:50:01

The easiest way out is to revoke Article 50 now. If anyone wants to commit to another referendum in their next general election manifesto, that’s entirely up to them.

havingtochangeusernameagain Wed 20-Mar-19 17:52:47

I don't want another referendum but that's more because it would provide a precedent for another one in Scotland, too.

However, I don't think revoking the Art 50 notice would be a terribly undemocratic thing to do.

And I don't think having another referendum would be a terribly undemocratic thing to do.

I'm not bothered about the so-called interference with the referendum as I don't think most people were swayed by FB posts (not enough to make a difference to the result). I do think some people may have been swayed by Boris's lies.

But I think it's certainly become clear that leaving the EU is not a simple thing to do, that there are lots of ways to "leave" and so it would be reasonable to ask people what they want. However, I've said all along that MPs got us into this mess so they can get us out of it. And stop playing chicken with our lives for their own political ends.

havingtochangeusernameagain Wed 20-Mar-19 17:54:34

What about the Scottish referendum? No one knew hypothetically what independence would look like

There was a detailed White Paper with a lot of ideas. Not just headlines on the side of buses.

havingtochangeusernameagain Wed 20-Mar-19 17:58:06

I fundamentally think that "government" should be as close to the people being governed as it can be

We should start a new thread on this because I am a centralist and don't like postcode lotteries smile

iolaus Wed 20-Mar-19 17:58:53

No I don't think it would be undemocratic

Use of the whip system I think is undemocratic though, but that wasn't the question

VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 18:00:12

Thus far this is arguably the easy part. We have as of yet to start negotiating what a future relationship with the EU would look like. For those that want it just "over and done with", afraid to say that as things stand we'll be talking about this for decades to come.

Deadbydaylight Wed 20-Mar-19 18:02:22

No I don't think so. It was 2 years ago, and we were lied to an awful lot on about basically everything. And the politicians have shown themselves to be incompetent. If anyone actually still has faith in them, I question your judgement because monkeys could be more organised than that lot.

Figmentofmyimagination Wed 20-Mar-19 18:03:17

People busy worrying about whether a second ref will harm democracy and yet here are a bunch of brexiters plotting to block up the motorways unless parliament agrees to leave on 29 March. Nice.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/somerset-news/what-know-far-brexit-blockades-2665744.amp

juneau Wed 20-Mar-19 18:05:34

No, not if the question is different. In 2016 the question was something like 'Do you want to remain a member of the EU?'. If that was asked again then it wouldn't be democratic IMO.

However, if the question was something like 'Do you want TM's deal to leave or do you want to remain a member of the EU?' then that would be reasonable, as the initial question didn't specify what leaving would look like, whereas now we know what the conditions for leaving would be we should, IMO, be given the option of whether to accept that deal or remain.

VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 18:12:16

I read a very good piece yesterday on how Theresa May has basically made a very good case - by her conduct thus far - for a second Scottish indy ref which would decisively vote out i.e by a large margin. If Scotland bails then everyone (the UK) is toast - will there be talks of a Scottish backstop too!

ahtellthee Wed 20-Mar-19 18:14:20

I hate it when people say 'would we have a third vote? When will it end?' Etc etc.

That was a snapshot of public opinion in 2016. I do believe another one should be held, before we act again, for 2019. Just as elections are held every few years, etc, democracy is where we check in that decisions are being made in accordance with the will of the people, and adjust accordingly.

Not being allowed one, is not only undemocratic, it's a dictatorship.

And TM is a total fuckwit, trying to wear everyone down with her bad, bad deal.

exculpatrix Wed 20-Mar-19 18:18:39

will there be talks of a Scottish backstop too!

No, because Scotland doesn't have a history of violent conflict on this issue (well, not in living memory, anyway). Any kind of hard border brought on by a no deal Brexit will screw the Good Friday Agreement and herald a return of the Troubles. The Scottish can, and probably should, leave the UK with a clear conscience.

VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 18:23:18

Yes I'm aware of that but if you are to maintain the integrity of the single market there would need to be a hard border and therefore you'd essentially be carving up GB whether you liked it or not.

exculpatrix Wed 20-Mar-19 18:26:19

Well sure, but a couple of points:

1) We can have a hard border with Scotland, no problem. The GFA prevents one between NI and Eire, but there's no similar agreement preventing a hard border between Scotland and the sad remnants of the UK.

2) That assumes Scotland would remain within the single market. A 2nd indie ref is unlikely to be finished before Brexit, in whatever form that takes. So we'll drag Scotland out of the EU with us. If they then vote for independence they'd likely have to apply to join the EU as a new member, with all the years of bureaucracy that entails.

So, if Scotland wanted to leave us, there'd be no need for a backstop like there is with NI.

BloggersNet Wed 20-Mar-19 18:26:20

I don't think a second referendum is undemocratic, more just delusional. What would be different this time? Most people haven't changed their minds. The government is still clueless on how to run anything. What would the options be? What, if any, would the parameters be? No, what we would have needed from the start is a cross party committee working on brexit to determine if it's feasible. Would that happen after the second referendum? I doubt it.

VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 18:28:22

This being in theory that the rest of GB would want to remain close partners with an independent Scotland.

VladmirsPoutine Wed 20-Mar-19 18:30:27

If we dragged Scotland out with us; I doubt it would be a matter of even months before their application for EU membership was approved.

Spiritinabody Wed 20-Mar-19 18:44:06

I believe the outcome of the 2016 EU Referendum should be respected above everything. If it is not then I don't think it is a slight on democracy, rather the death of democracy.

I believe Theresa May's deal is worse than a 'no deal' and am glad it was rejected. Whilst I truly believe she thinks it is a good deal, I beg to differ.

What I am disappointed in is:
1) Theresa May re-running the vote on her deal and trying to get MPs to accept it because they fear the alternative;
2) MPs voting with their own conscience rather than voting in such a way as to represent the majority view of their constituents.

I don't"t understand the OP's comment about how it can be "the will of the people" when the vote was 48% v 52%. If there were only 2 parties in an election then the MP with 52% would win wouldn't they? First past the post.

It may not be a fair system but it is the system we have. When we had a vote on whether we wanted a form of Proportional Representation some years back it was rejected by the electorate.

My personal view is that we should leave with no deal on 29th March. Both sides will suffer temporarily but I'm damn sure it will focus everyone's minds to achieve an outcome which is beneficial for everyone.

I'm not in the slightest bit worried. A lot of economic growth is down to confidence in the markets. I believe, after an initial jitter, that the UK will thrive with trade agreements with other countries.

I think too many MPs are 'glass half empty' rather than 'glass half full" people.

LittleChristmasMouse Wed 20-Mar-19 18:49:13

It was certainly the majority of those who voted, but NOT the majority of people. Non-voters did not vote to change the status quo i.e. to leave the EU. Therefore the percentage of people voting for Brexit was 38%.
Then the % of people voting to remain was even less than 38%.

This argument makes no sense.

Limensoda Wed 20-Mar-19 19:13:22

Most people haven't changed their minds

'Most' people don't have to.
Enough may have. Either to increase the original majority or change the previous outcome.

Angelicinnocent Wed 20-Mar-19 19:14:09

I don't think we should have another referendum but not because it would be undemocratic, simply because I think people overestimate a swing to remain. I don't think anything would change in the result and it will just be a waste of time that will further divide the country with more insults and campaigning by both sides.

Whatever way people voted, I think most people voted with their hearts and although you can change minds, you rarely change hearts.

Noname99 Wed 20-Mar-19 19:50:36

I really honest thought we as a country were moving away from the notion that the ruling class has the right to ignore the people because “they know best.”
But now people are actually advocating this!
Leave won - not by much - but it won.
However, most politicians did not want to leave the EU, they wanted to remain.
They have ensure that agreement was possible by spending two years throwing every spanner in the works possible and making absolutely sure the EU knew there was no unity on the British side. Having deliberately sabotaged any negotiations and fucked it up, politicians can now declare that “they know best” and can ignore whatever was voted for by the population because “it’s in their best interests.” It’s a mindset from a hundred years back - “we, the ruling class know best, the peasants can be ignored because they don’t understand/are a bit thick really but we know better!”
Ffs!

HotpotLawyer Wed 20-Mar-19 19:57:50

Democracy is shot to hell anyway.

Referendums are advisory.

I voted for an MP who is a Remainer, the overwhelming majority of constituents here voted Remain (many more than the sum total of leavers and abstained) so ad far as I am concerned my MP should push to represent their constituency.

But they are not voting according to their party’s line.

I voted partly for their party allegiance...... but don’t share their view on Brexit.

So where do I look for accountability to my vote in a democracy?

Why is the referendum trump all?

HotpotLawyer Wed 20-Mar-19 19:59:44

Noname: my MP is hardly a rep of the ‘ruling class’, and MPs are not the ‘ruling class’, they are elected.

FriendOrFaux Wed 20-Mar-19 20:03:35

Noname99

Agree entirely.

Aquilla Wed 20-Mar-19 20:04:25

Yes.

Noname99 Wed 20-Mar-19 20:04:54

🙄 In the history of the world, it is accepted that when a binary vote is taken, the side with most wins.
So long as everyone has a vote and no one has prevented from voting, the side with the most wins. Even if other people think what they are voting for is stupid. People who didn’t vote, don’t count as for or against.

Noname99 Wed 20-Mar-19 20:09:04

They are not behaving as if they are elected - people who are elected should represent the majority vote of the electorate. They are not.
This has nothing to do with whether I believe in brexit - nothing to do with being a remainer or leave voter. This is about the sheer arrogance of our current politicians who now seem to believe that their opinion is what counts not those they represent

icanhearapindrop Wed 20-Mar-19 20:19:36

In my opinion, the only way to get another vote through, is to promise another vote in say, 10 years. I said this in another thread, that we were told the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime vote, so if we are going to have another referendum, we also need to know that we can reverse that result in future if opinions change. People often say that it is our democratic right to vote on the government every 5 years, but how would you feel if you were told you could vote on the government once, and that was it for your lifetime? Do you think you would maybe vote differently to knowing you can change your mind in 5 years?
I voted leave because I don’t believe the EU works in our interests a lot of the time. That’s not to say they don’t do good things, but if I knew I could vote again in 10 years, I would probably have voted remain for now.

Inertia Wed 20-Mar-19 20:26:04

The 2016 referendum was the second referendum- a further referendum would be the third.

I don't think it would be a slight on democracy to have a further vote. I don't actually think it would be a slight on democracy to simply revoke article 50 either.

The 2016 referendum was advisory. The outcome advised that those who voted were fairly evenly split. The outcomes from the four home nations were not unanimous. So the advisory referendum advised that there wasn't a clear mandate for any path- the sensible thing to have done would have been to establish what the UK public actually did want before invoking A50. And in fact, several leaver MPs such as JRM suggested beforehand that there ought to be a further referendum once negotiations had taken place.

There's an added complication, in that the 2016 referendum was not compliant with electoral law, and would have been overturned as a legally-binding vote.

The questions in a future advisory referendum would need to be different from 2016 , and would need to include the consequences of each option. A yes/no vote isn't going to tell anyone anything new- Parliament needs to know exactly what people are willing to accept.

The country is already split. It's only going to get more split, whatever happens,and even people who think Brexit will solve all their problems now will still be angry after we've left- issues around lack of resources, cuts in services, NHS overcrowding , cost of living etc are not going to get better after the UK leaves , due to the financial hit / unfilled NHS positions/ increased food costs.

Weebitawks Wed 20-Mar-19 20:31:18

Urgh mummymeister the term "remoaners" is both moronic and ignorant. Yes remainers want a second vote. Brexiters don't....because they'll probably lose now people have a better insight into what it entails.

icanhearapindrop Wed 20-Mar-19 20:34:16

The 1975 referendum was also advisory.

HotpotLawyer Wed 20-Mar-19 20:40:04

Inertia could you explain more about this please:
“There's an added complication, in that the 2016 referendum was not compliant with electoral law, and would have been overturned as a legally-binding vote.”

Desperateforspring Wed 20-Mar-19 20:44:08

How many votes does anyone feel is good enough to win any vote?

I don't see another ref as a second referendum. The one we just had was the second ref. Any more would be the third

strathmore Wed 20-Mar-19 20:44:28

Well TM has just address dates nation- incas you missed it.

Inspiring-not

littlemeitslyn Wed 20-Mar-19 20:44:55

'Sleight' ? Do you mean slight?

Inertia Wed 20-Mar-19 20:45:54

I do have to take issue with those who imply that MPs are deliberately trying to sabotage Brexit because they are secret remainers, trying to stop the leavers from reaching some kind of glittering trophy.

Part of the reason the government has failed is sheer incompetence. Part of it is the Tories' efforts to maintain the integrity of their party above all else (even the integrity of the UK), and sod what happens to the country. The shambolic opposition presented by Corbyn is a disgrace, frankly. But the main reason why Brexit negotiations have failed is that politicians are trying to negotiate something which is essentially impossible.

UK Parliament is sovereign. The current Parliament cannot be bound by a previous one, and so it can implement laws which revoke previous ones. Cameron didn't actually have the power to make the promises he made. And MPs are not bound to do what their electorate says- their job is to act in the best interest of their constituents (which might not be what the constituents say they want). Those who shout loudest about wanting sovereignty back often continue to shout when Parliament exercises the sovereignty it already possesses.

The spectacular cock-up that is Brexit isn't some kind of conspiracy against those who consider themselves true patriots- it's a spectacular cock-up because it's a stupid idea, it's impossible to achieve in a clean and mutually agreeable manner, and it's being led by incompetent donkeys.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 20-Mar-19 20:54:15

I have no problem with another referendum.

But it would have to be in stages to be fair

stage 1

Leave
remain

stage 2
WA
No deal

Not
WA.
No Deal.
Remain.

Desperateforspring Wed 20-Mar-19 20:55:17

Inertia I think the more stupid Idea....is to get countries too join a trading block and then gradually by stealth try and unite us all to the deep degree we are now trying extracate ourselves from!

That was the stupid Idea.

DropZoneOne Wed 20-Mar-19 21:04:19

If TM is so adamant that the public voted for Brexit and that vote should stand, why doesn't the same apply to her deal? MPs voted against it, so why is she allowed to keep presenting it?

Justheretogiveaviewfrommyworld Wed 20-Mar-19 21:21:33

Leaver here, who doesn't the issue re a second ref. I would have my one vote and could choose use it as I saw fit at time of the vote, just as before, so why not. My main issue is this though, if the result were reversed on exactly the same margin as before, surely we'd have to go again? Leavers could say, well my 16 yo hasn't been able to vote and its their future. If we hold a second ref on these arguments than we would have to have a third go, no? Tbh, the lament of the 'young people have not had a say' is what pisses me off the most. I and lotts of others were to young to vote when we went in, we still went in. What's different now?

icanhearapindrop Wed 20-Mar-19 21:24:57

Exactly my point justhere! I wasn’t even born in 1975, so obviously couldn’t vote on what was also an advisory referendum. By all means let us vote again, but this can’t be the end of it, as things are forever changing.

scaryteacher Wed 20-Mar-19 21:43:21

Mamama I'm actually dumbfounded that this question is still being bandied around. For those who still don't get it - the idea of a second referendum isn't for remainers to get the result they wanted - although of course that is a possible outcome. It is an opportunity for the British people to vote on something that directly affects all of them now that they have more information about the task at hand.

The information was there if you cared to look for it, both about what the EU is morphing into, and the methods it uses to get what it wants - no-one has yet commented on the current situation it has engineered with Switzerland and the deal that it is trying to bounce Switzerland into, and which will extend EU reach into a non EU member state - and it was possible to work out what the alternatives would be with leaving - no deal or a WA.

It is widely known that the initial referendum was done almost blind - no one had any idea what was possible and how it would affect our economy. Now we know more. I cannot understand how people don't get this. See above - I can't understand how some people don't get that some Leavers are well informed, can read the Commission work programme and see what is coming down the track, and want to be well out of it. I would have voted No to Maastricht and Lisbon had I been asked, and as I was too young to vote in the referendum in the 70s, this has been my chance to have a say on the EU. I don't like it, I don't like its methods and I don't like the acquis or ever closer union.

Lifecraft Wed 20-Mar-19 21:48:36

People are being born and dying every day

Sad isn't it, not even making it to your second day.

Lifecraft Wed 20-Mar-19 21:52:21

I voted out. Out of the Eu, out of the customs union, out of the ECJ out of everything. I didn't ask for a deal. I voted to go.

Maybe you did. But seeing as some of the main figures in the leave campaign, Gove and Boris, told us that the EU would be falling over themselves to offer us a wonderful deal, then it's safe to assume that many people who voted leave did so on the basis of the great deal we were going to get.

MutantDisco Thu 21-Mar-19 03:53:05

@littlemeitslyn 'sleight' is pronounced 'slight' but spelled 'sleight'.

brizzlemint Thu 21-Mar-19 04:00:55

It's not a 'best of three'

I think that the whole embarrassing debacle should be swept under the carpet (and DC should be swept into the Thames or nearest sewage processing works) and forgotten out.

Oh how we laughed at the Americans for electing Trump but look what we've gone and done.

KittyWindbag Thu 21-Mar-19 04:19:38

I don’t see it as undemocratic as it is not the same as a general election. It would be undemocratic to repeatedly hold elections for perceived desires outcomes. A referendum is basically a massive opinion poll. It’s not binding. Opinions change.

We’ve had two years since the last one. In a world where people shouldn’t go absolutely off their trolley with anger at another referendum, I’d be all for another one as i’d love to know where the country now stands. However, I think it is likely to increase the anger and irritation ten-fold so I think it’s probably not a good idea.

OnlineAlienator Thu 21-Mar-19 04:21:00

No, i dont, please, just make it stop!

Iggly Thu 21-Mar-19 06:48:24

The information was there if you cared to look for it, both about what the EU is morphing into

You make no sense.

We will continue to trade with the EU as a bloc once we’ve left.

We need to set the terms of that trade.

No one knew what those terms would be, so they were not made clear during campaigning. That is what people mean when they say we don’t know what we were voting for.

You are talking about the potential direction off the EU itself. Which, as a member, we could have had influence over.

<shakes head>

Iggly Thu 21-Mar-19 06:48:52

*of

foxtiger Thu 21-Mar-19 07:39:08

1. It's not a second referendum, it's a third referendum (there was one on the same subject in the 1970s).

2. You wouldn't expect the results of a general election to dictate who was in charge for the rest of your life, so why is the result of a referendum nearly 3 years ago considered to be true for all time?

3. We know that that demographic has changed over those 3 years so that a Remain result is far more likely now.

4. The result was so close that time that in many countries it would not have been allowed to stand as binding. The Leave side had even stated that if the result went 52-48 in favour of Remaining they would want another vote.

5. The 2016 referendum did not give any information about the type of Leave deal we would be having - lots of Leave voters have expressed dissatisfaction with the way things are going now. Those of us who campaign for a People's Vote are basically asking for a chance to choose between the actual deal that is on the table and remaining. We believe this is the only way to ascertain what the people really want.

In summary, I don't see it as against democracy at all. Democracy surely means regular elections and a chance for voting to reflect the current mood of the country. (Leaving aside for now that fact that the first past the post system means the results of general elections may not always be an accurate reflection of that.)

I am massively puzzled (as well as angry) that the PM is still telling us this is what we wanted. She must be aware that at least 48% of us don't want this, and IIRC she doesn't really want it herself, so why not use a People's Vote to help get justification for saving us from this extreme and damaging course of action?

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer Thu 21-Mar-19 08:29:47

absolutely mothertruck3r. every person calling for a second vote is a remainer

This is bollocks im afraid

There was a thread on here with some people who either voted leave or didnt vote saying they wanted a 2nd referendum

I really dont think it helps when people make huge generalisations

Its what has got us into this mess and its dividing the country

No one who voted on this thinks the same as everyone else who voted

Thats the fucking problem

GottenGottenGotten Thu 21-Mar-19 08:35:13

'sleight' is pronounced 'slight' but spelled 'sleight'

@MutantDisco but in the context of the op, the correct spelling is slight.

Sleight - dexterity
Slight (in this context) - an insult

Elphame Thu 21-Mar-19 08:39:34

If there is a second referendum then I for one will probably never bother voting again,

No point if the losers keep making a fuss and get a second chance.

GottenGottenGotten Thu 21-Mar-19 08:45:38

Elphame, this isn't about losers making a fuss.

This is about people being able to make a decision now they have a better idea of what they are actually voting for.

That's not taking into account the fact that the referendum's leave campaign was funded, in part, illegally, and the funds used in such a way that people that are smarter than me say could well have skewed the result.

But do feel free not to vote again. I don't suppose anyone else will be that bothered by it.

BorisBogtrotter Thu 21-Mar-19 08:53:31

Its not anti democratic at all.

Its checking with the people once the terms are known, wonder who suggested that first ?

Forcing through constitutional change follwoing a one off, advisory referendum that was tainted by corruption, is anti democratic.

Picking and choosing which buits of the leave campaign to build the future change on, whilst ignoring other because its politically expedient to do so, is anti democratic.

You only object to a second referendum because you know leave would lose, your side threw everything at the campaign last time and made promises to all sorts of special interest groups that they now know will not be fulfilled.

Oh, and when you use democracy as a defence but then bang on about the will of the people ( against UK parliamentary democracy) and criticise those fulfilling their constitutional roles, then you are just using it as a slogan, not because you truly believe in it.

Typical leavers, just repeating soundbites, and then complaining when people call you stupid.

woodcutbirds Thu 21-Mar-19 08:54:26

I don't see it as a slight against democracy because the first referendum was run so badly. We should have been given clear overviews of pros and cons, and if that wasn;t possible because there were too many unknowns, then the government should have postponed any referendum until clear honest guidelines could be offered as to what we stood to gain and lose.
Everyone I know who voted leave did so because of Farage's bloody bus. That shows the extent of misdirection that was allowed. I don;t see how the outcome has been allowed to drag things this far into the mire withou a proper review.

LittleChristmasMouse Thu 21-Mar-19 08:55:50

She must be aware that at least 48% of us don't want this, and IIRC she doesn't really want it herself, so why not use a People's Vote to help get justification for saving us from this extreme and damaging course of action?

Imo, she won't back down because she has painted herself into a corner with all of her promises of leave means leave etc. To revoke A50 now means such a huge loss of face that I can't see her doing it. It would have been much better if she had put it back to the people (though I don't want a 2nd referendum) after the defeats in Parliament, either as a GE or PV, rather than try to force it through and then have to go on bended knee to the EU.

She is looking weaker and weaker with every step. I do think now that she has to admit defeat and resign rather than continue flogging her dead horse.

Pinkcat231 Thu 21-Mar-19 09:15:33

No, I think there should be another vote for all the reasons given here. There needs to be a bigger majority either way as with the first vote in the 70s.

I hate the winners/losers mentality of it all, we are all going to win or all going to lose depending on this outcome. There’s no trophy for getting your own way just a potentially very bad future for everyone.

mothertruck3r Thu 21-Mar-19 09:22:28

Why not address the real, lived experiences and concerns of the millions of people who voted leave - actually talk to people in the north and outside the London bubble who have been left behind, seen their quality of life diminish, have seen rapid and unprecedented change to their communities and actually deal with their concerns rather than just arrogantly dismissing them and calling them racist.

If you actually deal with these issues rather than brushing them under the carpet perhaps these millions of people won't feel the need to vote leave. Otherwise you will just have a situation where this anger and sense of neglect ferments and creates even larger problems down the line.

icannotremember Thu 21-Mar-19 09:24:36

Of course I don't. I'm not a twat.

ChardonnaysPrettySister Thu 21-Mar-19 09:30:26

Why not address the real, lived experiences and concerns of the millions of people who voted leave - actually talk to people in the north and outside the London bubble who have been left behind, seen their quality of life diminish, have seen rapid and unprecedented change to their communities and actually deal with their concerns rather than just arrogantly dismissing them and calling them racist.

Addressing and solving these issues is absolutely necessary. However, with Brexit damaging the economy it will be unlikely, so these leavers cut off their nose in spite of their face.

AutumnCrow Thu 21-Mar-19 09:55:18

You only to read a little bit around the relationship between the official Leave campaign and Leave.eu to see that a lot of 'dirty work' was done to not just manipulate people's fears but to create them in the first place.

foxtiger Thu 21-Mar-19 10:13:09

You only object to a second referendum because you know leave would lose

To be fair, there are Leavers who would like a People's Vote too.

SisyphusDad Thu 21-Mar-19 10:14:28

Only if you think that: voting in a Government in a general election; Government screws up royally; Government voted out in the next election: is undemocratic.

BorisBogtrotter Thu 21-Mar-19 10:38:39

"Actually talk to people in the north and outside the London bubble who have been left behind, seen their quality of life diminish, have seen rapid and unprecedented change to their communities "

However, when you do talk to people regarding this many of there complaints are not actually down to things to do with the EU at all.

The things blamed on immigration are very rarely to do with immigration. "Changes to communities" there are very few places that have had significant change to them because of immigration.

If you listen to people's complains, but the complaints aren't actually valid, then what do you do?

Address the real cause, but make them unhappy because what they thought was the cause doesn't change.

Fear of zombies is at an all time high, zombies don't exist, do we need anti zombie policies?

scaryteacher Thu 21-Mar-19 11:32:18

Oh how we laughed at the Americans for electing Trump Nope, some of us didn't, because we could see why it had happened, and imo, why he will get a second term.

Iggly There's nothing 'potential' about the direction of the EU - it has been evident for a while that the acquis and ever closer union is where it is going. National competencies are being turned into EU ones; QMV is replacing the veto in many areas.

This is what is happening with Switzerland as an example:
www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/18/swiss-people-teaching-us-deal-eu-trade-ultimatum/
'Meanwhile, the EU’s other showdown with a democratic European state is going badly wrong. The Swiss are holding out against the hegemony of the European Court and an attempt to gut their national sovereignty.

Switzerland is facing an excruciating squeeze. Its old bilateral accords with the EU are no longer deemed acceptable. Brussels wants to shut down the idiosyncratic “Swiss model” once and for all.

The country has until the end of June to submit to the EU’s new framework agreement, or see its trading and financial access progressively cut off.

“They were given a six-month ultimatum in December,” said Pieter Cleppe from Open Europe in Brussels. “If the EU carries out its threat, Switzerland will see its market access ­revoked.” The Swiss must accept the sweeping jurisdiction of the ECJ and “dynamic alignment” of EU legislation over migration, social security rules, and other key areas of policy.

“This is a carbon copy of the UK transition arrangement but with the difference that for us it is permanent,” said Thomas Aeschi, the Harvard-trained chief of the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) in the national parliament.

“We end up becoming a passive member of the EU without voting rights. It would be better to join the EU than accept this.

“The other difference is that the document is just 35 pages, unlike your 580-page book.”

Mr Aeschi said cross-clauses in the text allow the ECJ to muscle into sensitive areas covering tax codes, farming, healthcare, and cantonal state-aid policies. Punishment starts with the loss of recognition for the SIX Swiss Exchange and other bourses. It then ratchets up sector by sector as old bilateral accords expire until the country is shut out of the EU’s economic system. It amounts to a sanctions regime. It is a daunting prospect for a nation surrounded on all sides by EU territory. Yet the country is resisting this pressure with remarkable sangfroid. “We shouldn’t allow ourselves to be rushed and we shouldn’t be blackmailed,” said Nicolas Hayek, the founder and chairman of Swatch.

Mr Hayek said the EU market is not the holy grail. “The US and China are also big markets and they like our products,” he said. For good measure, he told Radio SRF that the EU could learn a thing or two from Switzerland’s flexible labour markets, decentralised leadership and aversion to career politicians. Switzerland’s business elites are mostly pushing for an EU deal whatever the implications for sovereignty. So is the Swiss government. But the twin councils of parliament are proving stubborn.

The canton of Ticino says it will ­oppose the deal when it comes to the upper house this month. Schwyz, Zug, and Sankt Gallen are also sceptical.

The Swiss lower house may reject the deal. Four of the five biggest parties are opposed. “The Federal Council is slowly coming to the conclusion that agreement has no chance in Switzerland,” said Corrado Pardini, a leader of the Unia trade union.

Union leaders fear that EU demands will undermine worker protection rights and that cheap labour from Eastern Europe will hold down wages. What is at stake is the integrity of Switzerland’s solidarity and welfare model. This is a nice irony since Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour leadership want Britain to be locked into the EU’s neo-liberal system of worker rights, which operates largely in the interests of big business and transnational capital.

But Swiss direct democracy will have its say. There will almost certainly have to be a public consultation. Voters are likely to reject the deal in its current form. A collapse of the Swiss deal would not pose a major threat to the EU in itself – though it would hurt German firms with intimate links to the Swiss engineering and machine tool sector.

The greater issue is geostrategy. Brussels has to manage its near abroad with care. Relations with Vladimir ­Putin’s Russia broke down over Ukraine. Erdoğan’s Turkey is deeply alienated, dislikes its EU customs arrangement and is drifting into the Putin camp. Norway has been dragged kicking and screaming into the EU’s Third Energy Package.

It is hard to estimate how much damage has been done to future relations with Britain by the hard-nosed negotiating tactics of the Commission, which has taken full advantage of the ­cliff-edge pressure points of the Article 50 process. The fateful decision to weaponise the Irish border as a way to lever the UK into the customs territory – ­under ECJ control – will have strategic consequences.

This is risky statecraft for the Brussels. Much friendship is being sacrificed on the altar of the EU acquis.'

You might think this is acceptable Iggly and that all should fall before the acquis and EU hegemony, but I don't, which is why I voted Leave, and I understood that meant to leave the EU lock, stock and every smoking barrel.

BorisBogtrotter Thu 21-Mar-19 11:50:09

The Swiss can't complain, they want access to the markets but different rules to everyone else.

BTW linking to an opinion piece in the Telegraph doesn't equal fact, it quotes directly from the leader of the right wing populists, you know those ones that brought us Brexit and Trump but have failed to deliver anything they claimed.

I'd also go look at the great deal the Swiss signed with the Chinese, instant Chinese access to the Swiss market, the Swiss have to wait 20 years for full access to the Chinese.

Trump may win a second term, but not because he has done anything he claimed he would. The tax cut benefits the rich and hasn't increased investment, there are no "new jobs" being created in the rust belt and there is no wall ( and Hilary isn't in jail, but all of his campaign managers are).

Trump may still be impeached this term

ahtellthee Thu 21-Mar-19 12:54:22

@scaryteacher I live in CH, close to a border and have done for a long time (pre current bilateral agreements).

It's a very different economy and not comparable.

lubeybooby Thu 21-Mar-19 13:05:54

In answer to the op title no not at all.

We have more information now.. plus May herself seems to think voting and re-voting and re-voting is absolutely fine

scaryteacher Sat 23-Mar-19 20:20:37

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

scaryteacher Sat 23-Mar-19 20:38:07

God, two tabs open, wrong thread re: voting

Boris My Swiss friends would disagree with you, and have agreed with the DT article. One of my friends was heavily involved in crafting the Swiss bi lats.

Just because you say something doesn't equal fact...why should I believe you about anything? I'm more likely to believe those I know and who agree with the article.

Again, you might be wrong about Trump, the new opportunity zones in the US may well attract lots of investment, and indeed have started to have an effect in some places, but I expect as it's a right wing policy, you'll say that's crap too. No, Hilary is not in jail, but she is as dodgy as hell from Whitewater to the email server issue to the events in Benghazi, where the buck stops with her. many of my US acquaintances said with a choice of Hilary or Trump. they couldn't decide who was the lesser of two evils.

Aeroflotgirl Sat 23-Mar-19 20:46:08

Yes it is. When will it end. What if the result is the same again, will we keep having referendums until the 'right' result!

LateEaster Sat 23-Mar-19 21:51:52

Scary thanks for that fascinating article!
I'm going to Switzerland for the first time soon.

Everything will be sacrificed at the EU altar. This is what people don't get.

The Idea, the project is more important than anything.

Anything. We get thrown Crumb's whilst the next era of big central government and control is ushered in.

greathat Sat 23-Mar-19 22:05:16

If you can't have a second vote on something then surely democracy is fucked. We get to change our mind in general elections regularly. Why not this, especially now we really do know how fucking stupid an idea it is

greathat Sat 23-Mar-19 22:06:44

Plus I never get what I want in an election. In a Tory stronghold with an MP I loathe

LateEaster Sat 23-Mar-19 22:11:49

People do change minds and evolve indeed. Hence the second vote in 2016 after 40 nigh years of the EU.

40 years and what have we got?

If it's so amazing do you think all these older people would have voted leave.?

We leave now and in another few decades we can see what that brings...

annikin Sat 23-Mar-19 22:13:24

Yes. And I get the feeling that if leave were to win, there would be another vote and another. Yet if remain were ever to win just once, it would be considered the end result and no more votes necessary. That is not democracy.

annikin Sat 23-Mar-19 22:16:01

And yes, you can change your mind after a few years of a government, and have another general election. But, we haven't had a few years of leaving yet to be able to judge it. We still haven't left, so haven't had the opportunity to do any negotiations on trade deals, etc, to see the potential benefits. You can't cancel it before trying it!

Rufusthebewilderedreindeer Sat 23-Mar-19 22:17:22

That is not democracy

No

Your made up scenario would not be democratic, you are quite right

Daisymay2 Sat 23-Mar-19 22:18:04

I voted in in 1975, and remain in 2016. I have no problem with a 3rd vote- although I don't think Cameron should have had the 2016 referendum (aka the second vote) - it was inappropriate to have it to resolve the Tory party's Europe issues and to try to minimise the threat from UKIP. That worked well.
All it did was to divide the Country and threaten the Union.
However, now we know the terms and have a better understanding of what it really means, another vote is essential.

Havanananana Sat 23-Mar-19 22:22:11

Plus I never get what I want in an election. In a Tory stronghold with an MP I loathe

How about campaigning for an electoral system that actually reflects the wishes of voters? Something like proportional representation (PR), which 40 out of 43 European countries use in various formats, as does the EU itself for MEP elections.

Which countries don't use PR?
France, Belarus (which is a one-party dictatorship) and the UK, which uses the grossly unfair 'first-past-the-post' system that disenfranchises almost 60% of the electorate and which usually results in one party having absolute power despite only obtaining around 32% of the votes cast.

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »