To ask if you see a second EU ref as a sleight against democracy?(198 Posts)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
@littlemeitslyn 'sleight' is pronounced 'slight' but spelled 'sleight'.
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.
People are being born and dying every day
Sad isn't it, not even making it to your second day.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
I have no problem with another referendum.
But it would have to be in stages to be fair
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.
Well TM has just address dates nation- incas you missed it.
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
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 »
Please login first.