to wonder if a second referendum is a good idea?

[brizzledrizzle]

The Sunday Times are running a headline that the PM's team are planning one. Part of me thinks it's a good idea, part of me thinks that the country has already voted and can't afford another referendum.

If the deal passes parliament, there should be a referendum on the deal vs remain. If the deal can't pass parliament, it should be no deal vs remain.

Well this is exactly what I mean by remainers trying to manipulate the situation. Both of those scenarios are designed to favour Remain, particularly as we know the bill is unlikely to pass parliament.

A much fairer and more democratic thing to do would be to accept the result of the last referendum, take the decision out of parliaments hands and offer the choice by referendum of going with the deal or with no deal.

But we all know that won’t happen, because the whole intent of the second referendum is to force a Remain vote from people who aren’t saying they are happy about the EU and want to be governed by it, they’ve just been forced into a corner by the alliance of remainers and the EU and threatened and bullied into unwillingly and unhappily staying.

In other words, the conditions for extreme civil unrest will have been created perfectly. When Great Britain didn’t want to let countries leave their empire, they didn’t shrug and give up. They became a lot more angry.

I think if there isn’t one there will be. general election in about the same timeframe so comme ci comme ça.

Tend to think of this in terms of the English Civil War. We’ve had several skirmishes lately but no big pitched battle. So one is coming.

How come Micheal Gove, avid campaigner for leave, turned down Brexit secretary?

If Brexit was such a wonderful idea, he’d have jumped at the chance.

The main guys, Gove, farage, Johnson, didn’t have a fucking clue. Perhaps it was all just jolly japes

It wouldn’t be a 2nd ref as it would be asking a different question.

No deal
Her deal
Forget this ever happened

Not read all the replies. As someone who voted Remain, I say no.
People have voted. Fucking suck it up, make the best out of the outcome or at least try to. As that's where people voted. To leave. No we need to vote again as you voted wrong. How many of those do we go through? Just no.

A much fairer and more democratic thing to do would be to accept the result of the last referendum, take the decision out of parliaments hands and offer the choice by referendum of going with the deal or with no deal.

A fairer thing would be to cancel article 50 because VOTE LEAVE LIED AND BORKE THE LAW.

By the way, did I mention that:
VOTE LEAVE LIED AND BROKE THE LAW.

Well this is exactly what I mean by remainers trying to manipulate the situation. Both of those scenarios are designed to favour Remain
But the last referendum favoured Leave. On the one hand there was a concrete choice (Remain) and on a the other side there were various, wide-ranging hypothetical Leave scenarios.

It was a bit like having a GE where the options were Conservatives v Not Conservatives.

Are you sure the EU wants UK back? Such a mess.

Having a two step referendum was considered pre the 2016 ref. I think it’s reasonable for the people to now have a say on the actual deal.

As someone (didn't catch who) said on the radio, we should revoke article 50 now as Leave haven't a clue what they want. They can't agree among themselves.

When they have a coherent plan then they should put it to Parliament or to the people. Until then, even considering leaving is idiotic.

I don't want a second referendum, I want MPs to do their job and compromise to find a way forward themselves, to leave the EU and get a deal that avoids people going without medication and food.

I will not vote remain and give remoaners the satisfaction, after them calling us "Stupid racists" for over two years and I don't want 'No deal'.

Everyone can see what a mess Brexit is. Like it was organised by a bunch of toddlers. We should revoke article 50. Direct democracy does not work well in a country with such a low level of education.

@TheStructure, you wouldn’t have to vote Remain. I still think UK’s best interests are being an EU member, but May’s deal would ensure medication and food supplies are not at risk. You could vote for her deal. It’s the best you can get if you don’t want single market and customs union access and protect the Good Friday Agreement.

I voted remain as well but democracy is democracy...

I don't think a two-party policital system is a real democracy.

There will be no Brexit.

The Eu owes us nothing. If we are leaving the union we can no longer enjoy the benefits of membership.

Well. You can argue with that. But historically, generally when people want to leave larger unions, empires etc, then if they’ve just tossed out leavers and given them two fingers or tried to coerce them to stay - well historically those have been the actions of entities that were really rather cunty. They’re generally regarded as evil in fact. Organisations that behaved like this were European Empires, the Catholic or the USSR. They thought it would make them stronger. And it did in the short term, but in the long term it created the festering resentment and hatred that was their downfall.

And the EU does owe us something. We are the second largest economy in the EU and our public debt is quite a bit lower than the third and fourth biggest economies, which means that financially, we’re very important to the EU. They don’t want us to leave because it’s going to be a struggle for them to cover that absence of money and trade, especially in the event of a no deal.

So, because they don’t want us to go, they’ve decided aggression and threats of punishment and trying to scare a reluctant population back into the EU. They could have chosen to stop us leaving or tempt us back with honey. Tried to alleviate the problems people here perceive they have because of the EU. But they don’t want to (and no supposedly helping deprived areas with projects that pour money into the wealthy while just creating a handful of dead end minimum wage jobs for locals doesn’t count).

And really, those are the tactics of bloody nasty, scary people. Coercive entities which view the ‘integrity of the project’ and dogma as far more important than messy little things like people and what they want or think.

It amazes me that people actually still insist that the EU is this organisation of lovely friendly, nice Uncles who just want everybody to be happy, when actually they’re behaving like a tyranny.

History smiles much more on those who free reluctant populations rather than keeping them tethered. I suspect very much in future remainers and the EU are going to be viewed in very much the way the upper classes and British Empire were when they tried to prevent independence for states within them. As oppressive forces who were determined to preserve the status quo because it personally enriched them.

A fairer thing would be to cancel article 50 because VOTE LEAVE LIED AND BORKE THE LAW.

I think you borke your keyboard.

But so did Remain. The electoral commission has fined both sides. And there’s not been any successful prosecutions as far as I’m aware.

And Remain lies too. Remember Nick Clegg saying the idea of an EU Army was a “dangerous fantasy”. The apparently instant and deep recession a no vote would cause?

How come Micheal Gove, avid campaigner for leave, turned down Brexit secretary?

He was quite clear that it was because he thought her deal was shitty and better could be negotiated. He said he’d take it if he could renegotiate. But May is being a control freak on the negotiation so he said no. If he couldn’t improve the deal, he wasn’t going to implement it.

If we were given three alternatives, the vote could likely be split between the three and give no clear answer. What if the result were 33.3% for each or a few percent either way? What would be the required number for them to act on the decision?

It seems fraught with problems. Another opportunity for the politicians to blame "the will of the people" for their own failure to take responsibility, and for leading us up shit creek.

Screw tactics

Wtf is wrong with people?

There are so many huge gaping reasons to have another vote, already listed above. The “just get on with it” attitude makes me sick.

And why “preferably no deal”? It’s been made pretty clear even by the governments over analysis that this would be damaging to the economy. But “the people have had their say” I guess so fuck it

There are so many huge gaping reasons to have another vote, already listed above.

What majority would carry the decision in a three alternative referendum, then?

Lol at Augusta. Are you a Russian bot? The EU are our biggest trading partners and the biggest and wealthiest trading block in the world. They haven’t been even slightly unreasonable never mind “aggression” or “threats of punishment”. What a load of old nonsense. We can’t expect to get the benefits of the EU if were not in it. We said we wanted to leave and that’s our democratic choice. The EU have been reasonable and friendly despite the rather challenging behaviour from ms May and the tories.

I’m afraid we need them much more than they need us. Of course it’s bad for everyone if we leave the EU but given that we are a minnow in comparison to r.EU it’s far far worse for us than it is for them.

It’s pretty horrifying all the “preferably no deal” people. They really think that permanently damaging our economy will somehow punish the EU. It terrifying that people are so stupid.

I don't want a second referendum, I want MPs to do their job and compromise to find a way forward themselves, to leave the EU and get a deal that avoids people going without medication and food.

It wouldn’t come to that. If we seriously went for no deal, I think the EU would give better terms.

If we ended up in a situation where we were effectively being blocked by the EU and medicine and food weren’t reaching us to people were becoming ill and possibly even dying, the EU would be internationally condemned. It would be a crime against humanity and possibly even a genocide. It would be the sort of siege warfare not seen since medieval times.

I know remainers are callous, venal and lacking in humanity enough to say ‘It will be your own fault for being naughty and not doing as we tell you. Nobody cares if you all die if you’re not in the EU, if you leave the EU you deserve to die’. But I really doubt that the rest of the world would feel like that and they would face immediate and heavy sanctions if not worse.

Currently there is an effective blockade of Yemen by Saudi Arabia. There is famine, disease is not being treated and people are dying. Obviously, using the same tactics as Saudi Arabia would make the EU barbaric evil bastards. And we’re a bit more important than Yemen and a developed western economy, and the EU certainly doesn’t have the power SAs oil gives it, so there would be a lot more fuss.

The only time similar peace time ones are the USSRs blockade of West Berlin, trying to force it in to the USSR. That was internationally condemned and relieved by other countries. The other one is the “quarantine” of Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis, which nearly started a nuclear war. They don’t have a good record as a tactic.

Basically just the fact the EU and remainers are using that as a threat shows just how morally bankrupt and inhuman ethe you are. They’re suggesting aping some of Saudi Arabia’s worst behaviour. That’s never a good look.