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.

There is absolutely nothing undemocratic about having a referendum now that the terms of leaving are clear. It wouldn't be a re-run of the previous referendum because we now know whether we are voting for the deal negotiated, remaining as we are or leaving with no deal.

My problem with it is that a large majority of people seem to be completely ignorant or in denial of what no deal actually means. Just read a few of the threads on here to get some examples! Apparently we should create economic catastrophe followed by decades of being poorer because people don't like Jean-Claude Juncker. Or the traffic impact on Kent when all those lorries have to start having customs checks at Dover can be mitigated by travelling to work on the steam railway. Not to mention the total lack of interest/understanding about Northern Ireland.

None of us should have the disaster of no-deal inflicted upon us because some of the electorate are ignorant of the consequences, wilfully or otherwise. If we had robust enough systems to ensure proper, objective information was presented to every household, like in Ireland, I might reconsider. The trouble is, too many people's feelings are entrenched and I don't see any amount of rational information changing that.

Most Remainers acknowledge that people voted Leave for reasons that seemed, to them, to be valid at the time. However they point out that those reasons were neither factually correct nor founded on good evidence. That’s not being spiteful

No, it’s being pompous & arrogant.

We don’t need you preaching to us thanks very much.

I don’t know. Ken Clarke thinks not and I trust his judgement.

A man who is so in hock to the deadly tobacco industry is not one whom I'd trust to make wise/ethical decisions that affect me.

To stay after the vote would be undemocratic.

I think it could be done if the government made a concerted effort to help the communities which felt they suffered through EU membership — a visible and concerted effort that was more than short term.

Beyond that, they would also have to promote the benefits of the EU in much more positive terms, and take part more positively as well. Having a seat at the table is invaluable in terms of being able to steer the future of the organisation.

Reform in some areas yes - but from within.

On Brexit I have agreed with Ken Clarke completely and utterly.

No, it’s being pompous & arrogant.

Awww poor surfer, there there, bless

My problem with it is that a large majority of people seem to be completely ignorant or in denial of what no deal actually means.
And so resort to sound bites like 'the will of the people', 'Brexit means brexit' which mean nothing.

The people didn't vote for or against this deal.
The first referendum was flawed on so many levels due to the Tory party's arrogance.

I would respect the outcome of the referendum if the options were remain or this Brexit deal and a reasonable majority voted to leave.

Add into this we've got Brexit people like Jacob Rees Mogg arguing that Theresa May's victory in the vote of no confidence wasn't a big enough win to stay (when she got over 60% of the vote) trying to claim that 52% on an unclear, multiple versions of Brexit plus issues with electoral rules being broken is somehow ok.

The whole process was flawed. Even people I know who voted leave and I disagree with openly say there were problems

The longer this drags on, the more I'm coming to the conclusion that vaguely educated people on both sides are capable of exploring the problems and issues with the previous referendum and considering ways forward, whilst utter idiots repeat 'yeah but Brexit means brexit' thinking it makes them seem well informed.

Of course there’s no time - it takes 3-6 months to organise any sort of national vote or election - it simply can’t be organised in a few weeks. Think of the logistics involved.

I really believe a certain section of leavers who come from the poorest sections of the country voted because they have nothing to lose.
Their living standards and job prospects are frankly already in the gutter...so caring about the economy wasn't high on their agenda.

But they are entitled for their voice to be heard.

Since we’ve already voted on leave vs remain and leave won, if there were to be a second referendum the options should be TM’s deal vs leave with no deal.

I also don’t understand what is so awful about the deal we have - to me it just reads like a soft Brexit, which is surely the best option now?

Maybe we should do exactly the same as was done in Ireland over ratifying the Lisbon treaty (the UK wasn't even given the option):

1. State the options clearly
2. Put it to the vote, so that all adults can exercise their democratic right
3. Count the votes and realise that the majority made the 'wrong' decision - and inform them of this, suggesting that they're uninformed/ignorant/stupid etc
4. Run the already-decided vote all over again, with the clear message being that it will be repeated ad nauseum until the 'correct' decision wins the vote
5. 'Win' the vote after the electorate realises that they only have theoretical suffrage and exercising it will ultimately make no difference if it isn't what their 'elected' representatives (i.e. employees) have decided WILL happen
6. Democracy is properly dead, but we'll firmly hang on to the name as a description of the country as it sounds kinda nice in theory

I really, really want to remain.

I had started to come around to a second vote as there seemed a more reasonable argument for it.

But - I think there is a big danger of Leave winning again, and by a bigger margin. Plenty of Remain voters think a second vote is wrong, and are likely to abstain. Leave voters are angry at being called racists etc and by the prospect of being denied their initial win so will be galvanised to vote.

A second Leave win would be a disaster and pave the way for the hardest Brexit possible.

TM should have acknowledged at the start that the initial vote was very close and to reunite the country we would need to follow the vote but not aim for total separation. A soft Brexit should always have been the aim.

Even now we hear few positive messages about the EU and what it does. The Remain campaign was negative, passive and ultimately boring. There is so much that could have been done. But it's too late now.

And there voice was heard. TM has attempted to negotiate a Brexit deal and then brings that deal back to the country.

Bills passing through Parliament are voted on several times. After a change, or after the committee stage when Bills are adapted another vote is held.

Voting several times on one piece of legislation as it changes is perfectly normal and democratic.

Yes but what I'm saying is that a second vote could very well rile people even more. Possibly with a bigger turn out.
It could well be a landslide leave vote.

But this is all pie in the sky. There is no time left and government know it.

And there voice was heard

And completely ignored by certain people.

PEOPLE THERE IS NO TIME FOR A SECOND REFERENDUM NOW

blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2018/09/05/how-long-would-it-take-to-hold-a-second-referendum-on-brexit/

My husband voted remain but would definitely vote leave in a second referendum. He believes strongly that leave won so leave we must. I agree with him, probably not enough to vote leave but I do agree.

But I agree there should have been one

Voting to leave was a hypothetical question
We should have been asked if we still wanted to leave once the deal was known
And it’s been proven the leave campaign broke laws whilst campaigning therefore the initial results should have been declared invalid

To those saying there’s no time to hold a second referendum - could TM extend the deadline for leaving beyond March 29 or is that not allowed?

I’m sure the deadline could be extended yes.

No the deadline cannot be extended without a ‘deal’ with the EU

How is TM ignoring the result of the Brexit vote?

She is not.

The country has invested millions and spent no end of time negotiating a Brexit deal. The result of the referendum was heard and acted upon.

We now have the result of the negotiations and so we vote on that.

It’s like saying do you want to move house (theoretical question)? Yes....
right well I’ve looked and there’s only shitty one bed flats in a run down area available - do you still want to move? No....

The EU have said the deadline could be extended of there was a significant change of direction from the UK, so it's likely they would accept one if there was to be a second referendum or change of government.

No, they should just admit Brexit, as it is would be disastrous for the Uk. It will dominate the Government's time and resources for decades when there's more important shit to be done than fixing something that wasn't broken in the first place.

They should revoke article 50 and take the time limit away until they have devised a plan that can actually be as good as the deal we've already got.

People are still way too uninformed and have been lied to too much to make an educated vote on the subject, even the politicians don't have a clue what they are talking about. Blind leading the Blind !