Why the the leavers so scared of a second vote?

[StrumALum]

I don't get it.

The leavers were fed some lies, that much is obvious.

What I don't get though is that if the leavers are so sure of themselves then why are they so worried about a second vote? If it's 'the will of the people' then it will be the same outcome anyway.

Or are they panicking because now the lies (like the bus) have been exposed, people are now more clued up and they were relying on people not being clued up to get the vote through in the first place?

No you don't, otherwise you would not have cited GDP growth and railed against it as you did during the last GE, you are just as ill informed as the brexiteers you rail against.

Understanding that Brexit is bad for the economy and at present incompatible with the GFA is not "ill informed". Brexiteers inability to explain the NI border and the state of the economy post Brexit tell me everything I need to know.

doh! we're not scared. we just know its political manipulation - tryna get a vote result that Remainers want! Believe it or not, some of us have got better things to do than keep running out to vote on the same question!

Pre-vote the discussion went on for months. My god it got tedious after a while. Then the vote. Now the likes of Alistair Campbell and Blair have come back from the dead to push this "people's vote" nonsense.

I mean who voted last time - the cat sanctuary occupants?

Remain lost even though they had virtually all the British establishment on their side - the government, the media, the bank of england, all the luvvies and so forth.

They couldn't come up with one reason to remain, except Project Fear.

Nothing has changed.

Surely we just need a referendum choice between May’s deal and remaining in the EU? What’s so constitutionallly challenging or undemocratic about that?

Because May's deal pleases no-one.

At least a No Deal Brexit will please a lot of people.

Because Magnificent the majority voted for leave! May's deal is not leave! So, rather deceitfully it must be said, Remainers have latched on to that if they put forward choices like 1. Remain or 2. Remain they can get round this inconvenience!

Absolutely appalling political manipulation.

May’s deal is ‘leave’ - just not on the precise terms some people hoped for. I see no reason why we can’t be given a choice between accepting it and staying in the EU. She worked hard enough to achieve it. Let’s vote on it and have done.

Duck - please explain why May’s Deal is not leave? It ends freedom of movement and it ends payments into the EU budget. Those are the two priorities I have heard from Leave voters. Please explain why that is not a ‘Leave’ option?

Understanding that Brexit is bad for the economy and at present incompatible with the GFA is not "ill informed". Brexiteers inability to explain the NI border and the state of the economy post Brexit tell me everything I need to know.

Including the GFA is shifting the goalposts somewhat, and you know it is.

You stated, with an appeal to authority that you listen to reports from big business, banks etc and imply that leavers are thick for not listening, you haven't yet stated why all reports using compound factors still only put us at loosing 11bn by 2030 with using the same metrics mean we will steadily increase from the 17 trillion we currently make.

It was you with your apparent understanding of neolib and yet being anti bringing up the neolibs reports as some gotcha for the leavers.

What happens if remain gets the most votes in the next referendum- do we go best of three then?

Ffs. No we don't.
The second referendum would be asking a different question.

The first referendum question 2 years ago was: "do you want to leave or remain?" (with lots of lies about what this would mean).

The question is now - "Do you want to leave with:
A) May's agreement?
B) No deal?
C) Or remain? "

There is no third referendum.
And if you think referendums are democratic then you would have to accept the decision from a second one now that people have some actual facts to go on.

What is complicated people?!?!?!

And this!!

But some people voted on lies so giving them a chance to re-evaluate now the full facts are known gives them the chance for a fully clued up vote

Exactly. You decide to buy a house - get a survey done. The survey comes back with a shit load of issues, it seems sensible to have a rethink about whether or not you still want the house.

1.7 trillion

not 17

Including the GFA is shifting the goalposts somewhat, and you know it is.

No it isn't the GFA is the elephant in the room and as this thread has shown leavers are woefully ill-informed on the issue.

You stated, with an appeal to authority that you listen to reports from big business, banks etc and imply that leavers are thick for not listening, you haven't yet stated why all reports using compound factors still only put us at loosing 11bn by 2030 with using the same metrics mean we will steadily increase from the 17 trillion we currently make.

I not talking from "authority" nor am I implying anyone is "thick".

It was you with your apparent understanding of neolib and yet being anti bringing up the neolibs reports as some gotcha for the leavers.

Nah, leavers gotcha will be when they think they've socked it to the elites only to find themselves at the mercy of disaster capitalists.

Exactly. You decide to buy a house - get a survey done.

When people have to resort to a facebook meme as a rebuttal it shows it's not just that leavers are ill informed.

Also the worst case scenario assessments are that we will lose 0.5% of GDP growth yoy, resulting in 11bn lost by 2030, this is from 1.7 trillion we take currently. Even the 0.5% has factored in compound negative growth and it still only came up with 11bn.

The worse case scenario estimates are much higher than above.

“A variety of estimates of the impacts of “moving to WTO rules” have been produced. The most detailed exercise was that conducted by the UK government, which estimated that a WTO scenario would reduce UK GDP by about 8 per cent over the next 15 years (that is, it would reduce cumulative growth over that period from about 25 per cent to about 17 per cent). This is after taking account of some modest positive impacts from deregulation and trade deals with third countries, in particular the US, and assumes the UK implemented a relatively restrictive immigration policy after Brexit.

This estimate is – given the uncertainties involved – broadly in line with estimates made by credible external organisations, such as the Centre for Economic Performance at the LSE, the OECD, and others, using both similar CGE models to that of the UK government and the alternative “gravity” modelling approach. Models which produce radically different, and more positive, impact estimates (like that used by Economists for Free Trade) incorporate unrealistic assumptions (for example, that UK prices immediately converge with “world prices” after Brexit, and that the UK imposes no tariffs or non-tariff barriers – even basic safety standards – on any imports), and cannot therefore be regarded as remotely credible.”

www.independent.co.uk/voices/nodeal-brexit-recession-project-fear-jonathan-portes-a8520266.html

Justanotherlurker posters explain using the house buying analogy because people fail to understand the constitutional explanation.

Referenda are advisory. The U.K. is a representative democracy not a direct democracy. When Bills pass through Parliament they are voted on several times.

Multiple votes on legislation is common place. Does that explanation make it clearer?

DuckBillTrill so your response to the issues with the GFA is....?

No it isn't the GFA is the elephant in the room and as this thread has shown leavers are woefully ill-informed on the issue.

Yes it is, because your post that i picked up on was:

I prefer to heed the warnings of the governments own assessments, BoE projections and the warnings of big business.

Or I could just consider that leaving the biggest and most prosperous trading block in the world with vague notions of spending years arranging new, inferior deals was er, ill-advised. As well as stopping skilled workers coming to the UK to fill job shortages.

No mention of GFA in there, and I picked up on your first sentence which you have conveniently ignored.

Nah, leavers gotcha will be when they think they've socked it to the elites only to find themselves at the mercy of disaster capitalists.

Exactly my point, you have little understanding of your apparent anti-neolib agenda, still, the ToRiEs ArE eViL ...

The evil right and the incompetent left both want Brexit.

If you know nothing else know that and base your vote on that.

news.liverpool.ac.uk/2018/12/13/full-speech-sir-ivan-rogers-on-brexit/

A fascinating and - I think - even-handed - speech here.

If we have to have another referendum I think the only way to make it fair would be to ask:

"Given the UK has voted to leave the EU do you want Mays deal or a WTO deal".

Cant see any other reason to have another referendum.

Would the WTO deal recognise the GFA. If it doesn't would it be legal to ask the U.K. to vote for a deal that breaks international law?

I don't know. What do you think Walkingdeadfangirl?

Walking dead. That’s exactly the question that should be asked in any future referendum. I find it unbelievable that the people suggesting a three question vote of 1.stay or 2. Leave with a) mays deal or b) no deal cannot see that this is not a fair vote. It’s like saying in the next election you can vote for labour or may leading the conservatives or boris leading the Tories. And they call leave supporters thick and accuse them of acting unfairly lol

Deadbudgie why is a three option referendum operating under an AV system unfair.

There are many other voting systems apart from FPTP.

Most academics regard FPTP as the most unfair system. Please explain why posters who want an AV based referendum are "thick"?

I agree there shouldn't be three questions (no deal, TM's deal or Remain) on the ballot. There should only be:
Leave on TM's deal or
Revoke A50
You can't put No Deal on the ballot. It's suicide and breaches an international treaty. It would be v irresponsible to give the option of No Deal.

Also does anyone know why, given this is basically a divorce why the “negotiated” deal allocates a level of eu liabilities to us but no assets?

What would happen if we walked and said well we will not put a boarder in place in Ireland and leave it to the EU to sort out. Do we need a border or just a method to track the movement (from origin) or people and goods?

Moussemoose

If you have evidence that a second referendum will take place using an AV system please post a link to it.

I would love to see it, I would love to have an AV system used instead of FPTP in our general elections.