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?

Dominic Raab - brexit secretary. 'Eh, I didn't realise trade through Calais was so important.' Thick as mince. Makes a deal. Decides not to support own deal.

To all the people saying it's undemocratic - if that's true, then our entire democracy is undemocratic.

We had a referendum to enter Europe, things changed, we had a vote to leave, things have changed, we can have another vote.

Our entire democracy is based on voting on the same issue repeatedly - we vote in a general election, and after a while we vote again, if everything goes pete-tong in the meantime we have another vote sooner than expected.

@bellinisurge

Grow up?
Won’t be converting anyone to your opinion with that attitude!

But this WAS a second vote ... the referendum to join was in 1975, where the result 67/32 ... also known as "a clear majority" ...

StrumALum

My point being that we won't though.

Both sides lied in the campaign and people voted, as in all elections, for many different reasons.

No good calling for a 2nd vote because we didn't have the full facts and then giving us only half truths this time.

How do we know that this is the best deal? How do we know that the government haven't done this deliberately so that abandoning Brexit seems like the only option and therefore they get what they want, which is to remain? They're never going to admit to it are they? Or admit that a better deal coukd have been negotiated?

We will never get all of the facts because that isn't how it works.

People’s values and priorities vary so wildly.

I agree with this statement.

I've been quite surprised about the whole thing tbh. I'm British but I live in a different European country, and have been here long enough that I've taken nationality of that country. Speaking to friends in the UK and watching the news I'm shocked. The country seems so divided, and I really don't understand why both sides wouldn't want a second vote based on all the facts.

But this WAS a second vote ... the referendum to join was in 1975, where the result 67/32 ... also known as "a clear majority" ...

We've never voted to join the EU as it is today though.

We didn't vote to join the EU however, our democratically elected, sovereign parliament, debated, negotiated and voted on all the major treaties.

That is how our democracy works.

My grandparents voted against joining the EEC in the 70’s, and being in the common market didn’t turn out they way they hoped it would, so all four of them voted to leave this time too.

@IAteMyGrandma -no longer in interested in converting people.
Watch the video. Learn what WTO means. You are an idiot if you support it.

If I’m honest I still don’t think I know enough to make an informed decision. I voted remain in 2016 because there hadn’t been enough convincing information to sway me to want to leave, so it was a case of “better the devil you know” I suppose.

I’ve still not been swayed to want to leave, all I’m sure of now is that our government is full of liars and twats At the same time, the process has also made me strongly dislike the EU leaders so now I’m just confused!

It’s a bit daft to claim that a second referendum some forty years after the first justifies us stating ‘oh it’s okay, we’re not really going to leave!’

I agree with augusta

Have you ever been to the European areas in Europe, I have, it's full of oppulence and money spending it's disgusting.

Sorry, what on earth does this sentence mean?

I don't get the argument that a second vote is undemocratic - that's completely illogical. I do agree with pp that any PV would need to be very carefully written so that it didn't split the Leave vote. That would indeed be unfair. However, with an STV system it's possible to word a new ref in a way that would allow more than one option without splitting the vote.

I do believe Leavers are scared of losing. And, btw, no one ever thinks they're affected by advertising/propaganda. They're wrong, however. And I include Remainers in that.

@bellinisurge
I’ve no intention of watching anything posted by someone who resorts to mindless name-calling, thank you.

We can have these discussions without resorting to that.

If the election had been for a person it would have been Re-run because of the proven funding irregularities. It was an advisory referendum - so no strict rules.

I'm assuming that fennel means the EU buildings. They're nice buildings. Just lile our UK parliament buildings are all very nice.

That’s all very well but no one knows what that “thing” people voted for actually is.

Is it ?
No deal
May’s deal
Norway ++
Canada ++
A Boris Johnson have your cake and eat it fantasy????
This!!

Sensible friends of mine who voted leave acknowledge this. They are also capable of interesting debate on the topic.

The only people I know who refuse to accept nobody knew what leave meant are the section of leave voters who like to inform us all that Brexit means Brexit and people have voted for what they want. Those people are not capable of sensible debate because they're just repeating the same old soundbites.

I voted Remain.

I don’t want a second referendum. There were lies on both sides of the campaign. I remember Cameron stating that if Leave won then he would trigger Article Whatever the day after the result. That didn’t happen.

There was Project Fear and all the other statistics and the leaflet and Leave still won. If there is a re-run now with a three-way split then Remain would likely win. Whilst that may not be seen as ‘undemocratic’ by remainers, it would sure as hell be seen as a betrayal of trust by Leavers who were told that Leave meant Leave.

Whilst a remain ‘win’ now would be seen as a victory for remainers, it would be a disaster for UK politics in the medium - 10-15 year - term. It would likely split the Conservative party (many would consider this a good thing but an opposition party that is seen as ‘no threat’ to the party in power is never a good thing) and would result in the rise of UKIP and/or an even nastier alternative.

The referendum was not legally binding. We elect our politicians to lead our country, and we trust them to act in the best interests of the nation. All this Brexit debacle has shown is how deeply corrupt our political process is and how wholly unsuitable it is for delivering that strong and stable government we were all promised.

A second referendum IS an undemocratic idea, when you haven’t enacted the outcome of the first one, it would simply be a ‘re-run’ until you get the result you want however ... this decision should never have been put into the hands of the people when and how it was. The practicalities and ramifications of ‘leave’ are so complex and nuanced, we would all (most of us) need a workshop or 10 to understand the full implications - including the Irish border, which no one seems able to resolve; the Gibraltar border and the impact of many other aspects.

When I voted to remain, I at least had an idea of what that would entail. Will leaving mean we have “UK jobs for UK people” as one brave Leave soul shared with me? How much money will go to the NHS, and where will it come from? Where will we get Insulin from, as not one single drop is manufacturered here? What will happen to Ireland, and Gibraltar? What will happen to minimum wages and sick pay and Human Rights - in March 19 and in five years time?
What price; human and financial will my grandchildren have to pay to give us back our Blue Passports and will it really be worth it in the end?

How can the country decide to leave without the answers to those and a thousand other questions, and can we after everything that’s happened trust our government to tell the truth in any case?

I voted Leave originally but I am intetested in what Tony Blair has had to say about the EU and changes coming re: open borders and if there was some definite news about that, I would seriously re-consider.

In my view, the EU parliament is ineffective, extremely wasteful of time and money and the Commission is not democratic. The EU Commissioners are not elected and are extremely powerful. I hate the way people like Junckers and Tusk behave towards Teresa May and I loathe Macron.

I think the amount of money spent by the EU on the Eastern European countries is the biggest issue. The allowed a whole raft of Eastern European countries to join that contribute almost nothing and gain billions- paid for by the countries in Western Europe like the Netherlands, Britain, France, Germany. These countries- Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania, Poland to name a few have altered the whole balance of EU finances. Junckers and Merkel are concerned that if Britain and other countries where there have been suggestions of leaving - like the Netherlands - leave then they cost of supporting the Eastern countries will be spread across an increasingly smaller group of Western Countries.

I am not opposed to a better informed second referendum but I think the result might be the same - Leave.

Country. Contribution annually. Benefits annually

Fucking politics. Why are we constantly fed a Web of lies.

I don't trust any politician at all. They're not normal humans. I think it should all be stripped back and simplified as much as possible so we can make an informed decision.

Whatever happens, I really hope we don't have an open border policy. That isn't going to end well.

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.

I've been thinking that a second vote would be undemocratic. But considering that we knew very little facts about the impact then, and now we have 3 specific options, it sort of makes sense to have a vote for the specifics.

@StrumALum

You did. In the thread title. Or I'm on the wrong thread.

If there were 'lies on both sides of the campaign' than surely that is even more of a reason to review the decision, not a reason not to?