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?

In fact the contempt is DD and TM making an agreement with the EU, then coming back and telling the domestic press that they wouldn't have to stick to it.

As has been repeatedly pointed out: Davis made a completely true statement of fact- that agreement was not legally binding for either the EU or UK.

Are you suggesting he should have lied to the electorate either directly or by omission by pretending the agreement was legally binding?

Why ruminate on how the arguments are put forward at this stage? Of course people feel passionately about the situation and their language is reflecting that! The focus should be on the fact that the economic recession that is predicted would be worse than the financial crisis of 2008 which incidentally saw the biggest fall in GDP since the 1920's! I don't get it, whats the attraction!

Why ruminate on how the arguments are put forward at this stage?

Sadly, I think its to distract from having to answer arguments about facts.

Agree the focus should be on the impending economic fall-out though.

Remainers have no obligation to convince leavers to come around to our way of thinking. Convince yourself!

As has been repeatedly pointed out: Davis Remainers made a completely true statement of fact- that agreement Referendum was not legally binding for either the EU or UK.

Are you suggesting he the Government should have lied to the electorate either directly or by omission by pretending the agreement Referendum was legally binding?

There. Fixed it for you.

Nicely put @Goldenbear

Buteo, that’s a bit of a pathetic response. It doesn’t change the fact Davis just made a truthful statement. Actually it just makes it look like you can’t think of a single counter argument which would show he was in the wrong.

It’s factual that the referendum is not legally binding, nor was the agreement Davis reached. But it only seems to be the agreement Remainers don’t want that pointing out about.

Goldenbear
Remainers have no obligation to convince leavers to come around to our way of thinking. Convince yourself!

So
Leavers have no obligation to convince remainers to come around to our way of thinking. Convince yourself!

You have just polarised and deadlocked the debate.

Both sides now stand across the room from each other and glare.

Nobody has an obligation.

However, it would help everyone if posters could explain their beliefs.

As I have pointed out there was a thread where leavers were asked to describe why they supported the EU. Lots of people posted, lots of points, lots of references. Some were good points others less so it was very interesting.

Could a leaver post 3 good reasons to leave. When I say reasons I mean reasoned arguments not words like 'sovereignty' or 'freedom'.

I think both sides lied. But I think the thing that no one knew, back in 2016, was quite how difficult and disruptive leaving was going to me. Even senior civil servants.

Brexit is going to cause seismic change to the political and social landscape of this country, in hundreds of different ways. Given that, I really don’t see how it is undemocatric to ask people “are you really sure about this?”. Surely that is the essence of democracy!

If Leave won again I would accept the result (and emigrate...)

Augusta

Davis reneged on his politically binding agreement.

Funny how you seem to think that’s perfectly reasonable but a similarly non legally binding referendum has to be held sacrosanct at all costs.

It rather backfired on Davis though, as it just highlighted the UK’s utter lack of integrity.

Can someone tell me why May has got the Military on stand by?
to scare people into accepting her deal

I don't like TM, I don't agree with most (all?) of her policies but to imply she is using the army to scare people is scraping the barrel.

Can I ask a question of remoaners?

Are you so gullible you really believe all this guff about chaos and shortages following a no deal Brexit, or are you still delusional that you can somehow scare people into becoming remainers and Brexit will somehow not happen?

Oh, that sounds like a question asked in good faith

Can I ask why you don't believe it?

I don't need to believe any horror stories about Brexit as all I need to know is we're leaving an arrangement that is a net profit to us both economically and culturally.

remoaners is a shitty turn of phrase

I dont know anyone that uses it in real life

But i know a lot of lovely people so that may be it

to scare people into accepting her deal

Oh wait i missed this bit

Yep...thats what it is

Youve been busted May!!

Hi @poppoppop100 - I'm sensible enough to think people might be realistically frightened enough to accept the WA

Davis reneged on his politically binding agreement.

There’s no such thing as politically binding. Either something is legally binding or it’s not. If David had said we had no option but to go with the agreement because we were politically bound to he would have been lying to the electorate. And he would have been pulled up on it and the press would have reported that it wasn’t legally binding and that it was perfectly possible to back out.

The electorate voted in a government on a manifesto promising a referendum. They voted leave in the referendum. They voted overwhelmingly for two parties who promised to deliver Brexit.

Politicians have a duty to the electorate that they do not owe to the leaders of a foreign power. They do not represent them and they have not been elected to represent their interests. If you can’t see the difference between delivering those with a clear mandate and giving away concessions to a hostile and aggressive opponent for nothing in return and massively weakening our negotiating position - well then you have very little sense.

To be honest, I don’t believe you have that little sense. I think you and most other remainers know full well he needed to say it in order to protect the UK’s negotiating position. You just don’t like the fact he protected our negotiating position because you want the EU to offer the worst deal possible so we’re forced to remain.

pop and others, suggest you look at the National Audit Office's reports on exiting the EU
here

This one specifically re: border here

According to newsnight who highlighted these reports the other evening, of the 700 statutory instruments needed to be adopted end March, only 300 have been. And of the critical IT systems, 11 out of 12 are not expected to be properly function post Brexit day.

These are UK government statistics not speculative journalism.

In summary, there isn't enough time to prepare for a no deal Brexit in March. The preparations reported on the news tonight is mere window dressing.

Augusta2012 in a representative democracy politicians have a duty to the right thing for the country. They do not have a duty to the electorate- that would be a direct democracy.

poppoppop100 do I believe the "guff about chaos and shortages"? In a word yes. I don't know how extreme they will be but I certainly believe there is potential for anything from minor disruption to significant social unrest.

In the long term Brexit will herald a significant decline in the U.K.'s global economic standing.

The thing is if I am wrong then it's no big deal. If we stay in the EU and remainers are wrong we chug along as we were.

If you are wrong you are risking the lives and livelihoods of many, many people. You risk plunging people into poverty and destroying peace in NI. If you are wrong chaos capitalism may rise with political extremism and massive social unrest.

You are risking an awful lot on your 'belief' that you are right. A belief which very few experts support.

There are two kinds of people who are against a second referendum. The first are rich arseholes who know full well that leaving will be disastrous for the economy but don’t care because they, personally, will benefit. The second kind are stubborn simpletons who actually think that catchphrases like ‘leave means leave’ are powerful arguments.

I'm pro EU, I'm neither of the above

I'm opposed to a second vote because that is not, and never has been, how it works. You can't just keep re-voting until you get an answer that suits you.

A lot of the people who voted on both sides are pretty low information voters. A lot of people voting along ideological lines and very little else. The bullshit lies told on both sides had no greater impact on the outcome than all the other false promises and outright lies that have occurred for every other legally binding vote in memory

The people were told that their decision would be respected, they decided, as much as I disagree with it, it does not matter. The painful thing about democracy is that it is people, everyone, regardless of how well or poorly they wish to inform themselves having a say.

I think it's pretty scary that there are supposedly pretty normal people using an argument like "how can having a vote be undemocratic"

"When it's seeking to overturn a decision arrived at democratically"

Well, I'm confused as to what "respecting the vote" means, since Theresa May is convinced she is respecting the vote, whereas some Brexiteers seem to think she is not actually "leaving the EU" at all, just giving up all influence. And as for voting again being undemocratic - that's as stupid an argument as saying it's undemocratic to have a general election every few years, or undemocratic that politicians can force a general election before the elected government's term is up. If our elected representatives decide we need another referendum to work out where to go next with the mess they have made, I consider that pretty democratic.

easyandy101 as has been said before the point is people did not know what they were voting for. They can't have known because no one knew.

In Trade union negotiations you get a vote enabling you to negotiate then once you have negotiated you go back to the branch and they support or reject your deal. This is also how international negotiations work, a government negotiates and then brings it back to its legislature to vote on.

This is how negotiations work. The fact that some MPs dissembled and others down right lied does not make it less true. The fact that many people don't understand this does not mean it is not true.

We can't make decisions on what people think should happen because, well, because that's what they think.