To wonder if a second vote is possible?

[LEMtheoriginal]

Could there be a 2nd referendum or is it too late?

If there is a people’s vote then, to respect the EU in/out referendum result the question can only be: do you approve the deal negotiated or no deal. It would be undemocratic to have a third option of remain. I say this as somoene who voted remain in 2016

'When will the asking for a second third fourth vote stop then? Till we make who happy?'

The people have no confidence in the previous referendum because most of us feel misled. The public were told lie after lie. That makes the first vote undemocratic. I feel to see how a further consultation with the public could ever be undemocratic - you are still free to vote as before.

The country is going to hell in a handcart because politicians don't want to lose face. It's like watching a car crash.

Well....seeing as at the first referendum the majority chose leave based on Angela Merkels "Come one, come all" speech, during the episode of her welcoming millions of illegal immigrants into Europe, who were looking for their EU status and then hopefully moving on to their countries of choice, as per EU free movement... Usually France, Sweden and UK... At a time where UK hospitals were not coping with demand, schools were not coping, housing was not coping, no jobs for the people already living here and the benefits system being exploited it is interesting that Merkel seems to be pushed out of office for the next German election.

Maybe with that idiot out of the way a second referendum may see a different vote. Who knows 🤷‍♀️ I guess it depends on the stance of the next German leader...

The UK is suffering. We cannot cope with an extra few million people taking out of the pot but putting nothing in.

I'm sure the remainers will be happy to make up the shortfall.... 🤦‍♀️

comes across as being completely out of her depth.

Wouldn’t anyone be out of their depth though? We’re in completely uncharted territory, there’s no precedent to work from on either side. I think whoever’s in the job would be having the same problems she is.

If we had another vote id vote out now rather than in. Im not the only one. Go up north and you see why

Londonrach, Neshoma...
PLEASE explain this North thing to me. I don't understand.

This is like Scotland all over again. If you are going to have a referendum7
/plebiscite only have one. Otherwise they will be never ending and no one had the energy to permenantly give a shit.

i really hope so but i don't see how because there won't be another election before brexit. It's lovely that Corbyn will bow the will of the labour party, but as he isn't the prime minister of the party in power, it's a non issue.

I do think referendums on huge changes need a bigger majority or a different referendum strategy with a referendum on the actual plan (I'm looking at you too, indyref)

boymuma
We had the first referendum in 1975 and we entered the eu.

No we didn’t. We were already in the Common Market and were asked to decide whether to stay in or leave. The Common Market was nothing like the EU. It was merely a trading agreement. We voted for one thing and over the years got something completely different.

OR put another way, lets keep having a vote until they get the result they want.

beyond ridiculous.

don't know how this demand is meant to be "justified". some serious mental machiavellan gymnastics going on here.

@FinnegansWhiskers

A few points to balance the views expressed:

• Syrians were allowed into Germany as refugees and were/are not naturalised German citizens so do not gain EU citizen rights of FOM
• even with FOM, UK (and any EU state) has right to eject/deport any EU migrants moving to this country and not employed/self-sufficient within a limited time period. To date this right does not seem to have been used by UK gov very widely.
• to some extent at least any capacity issues with respect to housing, schools and health is the fault of the UK government for failing to adequately plan for changes in demand. Migration to UK is also substantially non-EU migration based as well.
• the "UK is suffering". I'm sure that many in the UK would agree but to what extent is this UK government's austerity policies responsible rather than EU membership. If further suffering is to be avoided the obvious options are leave under EEA/EFTA+CU or remain rather than leaving the EU.
• Accepted that EU is far from perfect - for example, Germany's actions suggest that FOM should be prescribed or obligations should be placed on any state wishing to increase external immigration to gain consent of other states - but UK could remain and implement and enforce its rights to track and deport EU (and other) migrants more effectively without incurring the inevitable economic damage of leaving the EU. Why leave? Why not engage with greater energy and dynamism to lead EU to the structure we think most beneficial to all?

Given so much more is known now about the types of Brexit possible and the impacts on the UK economy including the PMs deal why not allow the electorate a final say (including a remain and no deal option) ?

The great British public can't even choose the right winner on the X Factor

Have I understood your reasoning correctly?:

'The Right Decision' = The one that I personally would make;
'The Wrong Decision' = Anything else

I haven't watched the X-Factor for many years now, but unless they've changed the format drastically, the public are asked to vote for their favourite; so, assuming people do actually know who their favourite is before they vote, the winner is the person most people nominate (vote for) as their favourite, so they cannot fail to vote for 'the right winner'.

This sounds to me like when virtue-signallers proclaim that "The only thing they won't tolerate is intolerance" and don't even understand the absurdity and foolishness of what they're saying.

I bloody hope so. If there is, let's hope enough time and thought is put into posing a sensible question or set of questions, contextualised to enable the voters to understand what they they are actually voting for.

I think one reason why so many people who voted to leave stay quiet is not because they suddenly realise how very foolish they must have been for not making the 'obviously correct' decision but because they know they'll be automatically shouted down and gaslighted as racists by people who just assume that their opinion must be THE right one - and despite the lies and fear-spreading from both sides - before and after the referendum - they haven't changed their minds.

People had any number of reasons for voting to leave, whether they wanted the UK to retain sovereignty, were concerned at the EU's reported plans to do away with the NHS, believed the EU spent member state's money very unwisely (and unaccountably), had concerns about levels of immigration (i.e. numbers of people, not their colours), unfair markets caused by vastly differing income levels across EU countries - or any number of reasons.

There are plenty of debates still to be had, although the ideal time for trying to win people to your way of thinking was BEFORE the referendum took place; but if anybody is too lazy or of too low intelligence to engage in meaningful discussions with people who might hold differing viewpoints, why not just shout 'RACIST!' and then immediately blank them.

It’s like my four year old “please mummy can I have more chocolate”... nope so he asks the question again and again.

It is nothing like your four year old asking for another chocolate . Leaving the EU is a massive and potentially damaging undertaking and we are long past the stage where trivial nonsense about children and chocolates will do.

At any rate, what good would a second referendum do?

If we got the same result again, we'd be in exactly the same place as we are now.

If we got a small swing the other way, we obviously couldn't accept it as fair and act on it - just because it was the more recent one after relatively little time had elapsed. Any number of circumstances could have changed slightly - more people on holiday, people ill and/or in hospital, people feeling browbeaten and forced into changing their vote (to avoid being repeatedly called racist and patronised again) - anything.

'Best-of-three' is for playing conkers in the school playground - not issues of national importance.

Toddlers struggle to understand that 'BUT I WANT IT!' isn't a good enough reason for getting your way, regardless of other people's feelings; unfortunately, plenty of people seem to be able to reach voting age and yet still never manage to learn this.

Possible but I think unlikely.

Referenda are advisory in the U.K.. Parliament will make the final decision. Another referendum would help MPs make the decision.

Lots of problems people mention will NOT be solved by leaving the EU and we will end up in a worse mess. I live in the north btw.

.Referenda are advisory in the U.K
The indyref was not advisory.

Another referendum would help MPs make the decision
MPs made the decision (unanimously) 2 years ago to let the country decide. That may have been a mistake but too late now.

It’s like my four year old “please mummy can I have more chocolate”... nope so he asks the question again and again.

It is nothing like your four year old asking for another chocolate hmm. Leaving the EU is a massive and potentially damaging undertaking and we are long past the stage where trivial nonsense about children and chocolates will do.

How is it different in any way in principle? Just because the Hatton Garden heist was theft on a grand scale doesn't mean that stealing sweets from the corner shop isn't also theft. Democracy is democracy whether it's choosing which restaurant to go to with friends or a national referendum.

If the result of the referendum had been 52/48 in favour of leaving, can you honestly say that you would now be earnestly calling for a second referendum to give people a chance to reflect on their choice and consider if they now wanted to change their mind on such an important matter? Or would that not have been necessary, because you said so and you agreed with the outcome?

Democracy means that the majority decision goes and, if you're in the minority, you just have to accept as an adult that your choice didn't win. Other non-democratic countries are available, should you prefer to move. Start a country of your own if you know best in everything and fancy yourself as a benevolent dictator.

Would you like us to go back to the time when only those people who could be relied on to make the 'right' decision (i.e. they had money, power and influence and were born to rich families - and were male, naturally) had the vote and ordinary folk (and all women), however wise and considered their opinions, never got a look in?

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

"... the EU's reported plans to do away with the NHS ..."

This is news to many I suspect - do you have any references to support this assertion.

Agree that the ideal time for debates would have been before the referendum but unfortunately the "leave" option was presented without an associated implementation plan and so was difficult to debate as no single position was advocated or defended by the campaigns. Many implementation options were presented and assumed to be viable but reality is proving many of these assumptions wrong:

• cake and eat-it (i.e. chequers) rejected by EU and contrary to pre-referendum claims UK has no power to compel EU to accept it
• EEA/EFTA+CU appears to be rejected by leavers themselves - despite it being most viable option
• no deal - significantly damaging to the UK economy (and food security)
• Canada - damaging to UK economy and doesn't resolve NI border issue

The negotiating period has changed the "facts on the ground" and the population deserve a chance to reconsider their choice. Not least because that chance exists - A50 can be revoked. You wouldn't press ahead with a house purchase if the survey indicates subsidence and the searches find a new motorway to be built just 00ft away. Similarly, you reconsider Brexit when "cake & eat it" turns to no cake nor eating and +£350/week for the NHS evaporates to nothing. Common-sense surely.

As a leave voter I can see the reasoning behind another vote. However if brexit is overturned we get a 3rd vote on the new terms for remaining with an immediate no deal brexit as an option.

@WeBuiltThisBuffetOnSausageRoll

Democracy also means that the people's opinions and desires may change.

A single vote be it election or referendum is not held inviolate for all time. GEs happen every 4-5 years to allow the people to reevaluate their decision ... So too should referenda be revisited particularly where new information is available that may change peoples views.

The problem with the 1st vote is that people did not understand what they were voting for. They were told that we could leave the EU with no problems (not true), get a great trade agreement (??) and have extra money for the NHS. Leavers were so badly misled that I feel it is democratic that we have another vote.

@Singletomingle what if we remain on exactly the same terms as before the 2016 referendum?

The EU have said that door is open. So it's a vote to remain exactly as before all this madness.