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?

I’ve read that Ivan Rogers speech, A summary is basically ‘We are rich people and we like being rich. We might not be quite as rich if we leave the EU. Therefore we should remain.’

It is written entirely from an elite point of view. It doesn’t even address the concerns of people outside the EU, let alone grapple with how to solve them.

If we are having more than 1 question in a second referendum then we should include the question:
"should the result of referendums be ignored, yes or no". Problem solved.

bumbleymummy, most leavers wouldn't mind if you wanted to democratically put a referendum in the manifesto of a political party, win a general election and then legislate for another referendum.

I am not sure what crystal ball you have but I have no idea what Leave is actually going to be like. Or remain for that matter.

What people don't like is MPs asking the country what they want to do and then ignoring the result because they dont like what it was. Its not what most people think of when you say 'democracy'.

@Augusta, care to substantiate? . It’s interesting that most of the official Leave campaigners are all extremely wealthy. There are arguments around the role of EU but it’s clear that the majority of major Leave players motives for Leave are the creation of a total free market with zero checks on the injustices that can happen with that. Patel, Johnson, Rees-Mogg etc dream for leaving the EU is to have a deregulated, low tax economy, which will enrich the most wealthy further but leave many even poorer with next to no state support.

Lexie is the other extreme but the movers and shakers behind the Leave campaign are driven by pursuit of more money. .

It doesn’t even address the concerns of people outside the EU, let alone grapple with how to solve them

May I ask who are you are referring to here? Do you mean developing countries? Thank you.

To make it fair, keep 2 options.

Leave or Remain.

Once you select leave, the follow up tick box is then ‘deal or no deal’.

Once you select remain, the follow up tick box says ‘if leave have the most votes, deal or no deal’.

That way you have a fair split of leave/remain.

Bumbley has it. If there is a further referendum, I think it's likely to be a two-part question:

• Should the UK leave or remain in the EU?
• If the UK leaves the EU, should it do so under the terms of the negotiated deal, no deal, EFTA membership, [insert 11th hour plan here]?

I think this would be fair, insofar as it wouldn't split the Leave vote. Certainly fairer than just saying 'you lost, deal with it, what do you want, best of three?' I don't think you can use the argument that 'the people have spoken' as the foundation for your position and then stick your fingers in your ears when an opportunity arises to find out how the people are speaking now.

If remain had won would they be happy now to have a second referendum?

Funnily, that’s exactly what Nigel Farage said he would want in the event of a narrow Remain victory. He said anything else would be undemocratic. If the Leave campaign can’t take it, they perhaps shouldn’t have dished it out so freely.

And no, we wouldn’t be happy of course, but if the implications of remaining in the EU had turned out to be substantially different from the information presented in the campaign, and if the Remain campaign had broken electoral law, I really don’t think we could have expected anything else.

AND if the implications of remaining in the EU had turned out to be substantially different from the information presented in the campaign, I think I, as a Remain voter, might want the opportunity to revisit my decision.

Here’s some bedtime reading for anyone who’s interested in hearing an outside perspective:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/16/britain-has-led-a-charmed-political-life-but-there-is-a-price-to-pay-for-complacency

I don't understand why if remainers are so keen on a second referendum they dont just follow the proper democratic process to have one. Just put it in the manifesto of a political party, get enough votes for that party to win a general election and then legislate for another referendum. Just like leavers did.

Because by then the UK will have left the EU. All the things we have negotiated and achieved as a member over 45 years will be lost.

You can’t just use a GE if you have started off this process (somewhat foolhardily) with direct voice on a single issue. Manifesto commitments cover a whole range of issues, so you will not achieve an answer that has legitimacy, much like all the t**ts who claim that leaving the EU is endorsed by 80whatever% of the electorate as a result of the last election. You can say it until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t make it true. (For example, Many people voted labour to (successfully) boot out their brexit-supporting conservative MP, or to give arrogant May a dose of schadenfreude for calling the election at all.)

I don't care if any second referendum says Leave under TA Withdrawal Agreement OR Remain.
As long as No Deal is explicitly not an option. That would be a disaster that some people are stupid enough to vote for.
I fear it would be an option therefore I am against a second referendum.

What Togand said. That will happen in 10 years time if we leave. It would however be better if we could avoid wasting yet more vast sums to of money to obtain that and retain the fab deal we already have which we won’t get in 10 years time. There is a reason the rest of the world thinks we’re ceazy.

I really don’t want 10 years of misery and then another 10 renegotiating to get back in.

Not all leavers are against a vote. My parents were staunch leavers until they learnt more. They feel duped.

And Boris Johnson can knob off. What is ‘ sickening’ is the way he switched sides to suit his career, lied to the electorate and then bogged off when the country needed him because he didn’t know what to do and it was better for his PM ambitions than to be seen clearing up the shit he helped make.

Why is the first vote valid? Lies and more lies plus ongoing criminal investigation of some of those involved in Leave. That's democracy in the mode of Trump.

What people don't like is MPs asking the country what they want to do and then ignoring the result because they dont like what it was.

In an advisory referendum where the Leave campaign acted illegally and massively overspent. Some of the things that were promised that people voted for are not deliverable and we now that now. So why can’t you go back and say, ‘This is what is actually available. Are you sure you want to Leave under these conditions rather than the ones you were promised 3 years ago?’ Why are people not allowed to change their minds on such a big issue?

*know that now

As long as No Deal is explicitly not an option.

No - No Deal is an option so needs to be on that (not gonna happen) paper.

You don't get to dictate what other people want FFS.

No Deal is better than May's current proposition.

Manifesto commitments cover a whole range of issues, so you will not achieve an answer that has legitimacy, much like all the tts who claim that leaving the EU is endorsed by 80whatever% of the electorate as a result of the last election. You can say it until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t make it true. (For example, Many people voted labour to (successfully) boot out their brexit-supporting conservative MP, or to give arrogant May a dose of schadenfreude for calling the election at all.)

If some remainers are too stupid to realise that 91% of MP's were elected on a manifesto committing us to Brexit, that is their issue, using revisionism will not change that fundamental fact.

Many people voted labour to (successfully) boot out their brexit-supporting conservative MP

And yet the Conservatives secured 13 of the 59 seats in Scotland - their best performance since 1983.

The six seats Labour lost on June 8 – and every one of them in a Brexit town

labourlist.org/2017/06/the-six-seats-labour-lost-on-june-8-and-every-one-of-them-in-a-brexit-town/

One of the main reasons that Jeremy Corbyn is being so vague about the possibility of a second referendum is that he's frightened of losing a large chunk of pro-Brexit voters.

It's been estimated that if the Brexit vote was counted by Parliamentary constituency (as per a general election); 70% of Conservative constituencies and 60% of Labour constituencies voted to 'Leave the EU';

fullfact.org/europe/did-majority-conservative-and-labour-constituencies-vote-leave-eu-referendum/

We do know for certain that 270 voting areas (67.7%) voted 'Leave' and only 129 voting areas (32.3%) voted 'Remain'.

Seven of the 10 areas with the highest share of the vote for 'Remain' were in London.

"No Deal is better than May's current proposition."

Ridiculous statement.
How is destroying GFA better than not destroying GFA?
How is food supply disruption better than no food supply disruption?
No Deal is a Childish tantrum that should be treated as such.

One of the main reasons that Jeremy Corbyn is being so vague about the possibility of a second referendum is that he's frightened of losing a large chunk of pro-Brexit voters.

It means he will have to come firmly down one way or the other, with his public voting record being one of a euro sceptic he has the metropolitan remainers and his leaver labour strongholds to keep happy.

no food supply disruption?

This kind of hyperbole doesn't help anyone.

Krugman has talked about this hysteria.

threadreaderapp.com/thread/1074315011659575297.html

No Deal is a Childish tantrum that should be treated as such.

But at least we get sent out of the room and can play with our friends outside.

May's deal is a childish tantrum that leaves us in the corner of the room but ignored by all in it...

But your friends won't want to play with you.

Not hyperbole- pretty sure the government technical notices cover this. As do all the Non-Disclosure Agreements that the government is having with businesses.
But if reality scares you, do something about it.

Justanotherlurker

thought you were a Brexitier? a good link and pretty much my views on the EU, for what thats worth.

.......All that being said, if I were British I'd be for a second referendum and would vote to remain. The EU, for all its flaws, is a good thing on balance. But do it with open eyes, and without either scare tactics or romanticizing what you're doing

We have had the vote. It's democracy.