If there was another Brexit referendum would you vote the same way?

[marmeladerose]

By the way I am not for another Brexit referendum but I am seeing a lot about it on the news/social media and it got be wondering what everyone would vote if it did happen and what did you vote before? I voted remain and would vote remain again.

David Cameron knew it would be close after the start of the campaign.

The EU would have liked the UK to vote remain and not have had a referendum at all. I don't remember anyone there commenting on the polls though,.

@eatmycheese my point was that the question is not about just brexit. It is about the constitutional force of referendums and direct democracy in the UK. By ignoring convention (easily done, and indeed done in the past on other issues, precedent for referendums is weak) this will mean that future referendums are even less likely to be followed. It also means that it is less likely that direct democracy will be integrated into our political system. So if one wants/believes in direct democracy then it is difficult to reconsile that with allowing parliament not to follow the result of this referendum. Behind the brexit issue hides the effectiveness and modern applicability of a representative democratic system (this is of course also a big issue within the EU itself). I am not necessarily advocating direct democracy but viewing this issue only in the light of brexit is foolish (and in your case a bit emotionally invested, don’t worry it will be ok either way, it’s not really a big deal either way, hardly a tragedy). Brexit has far wider implications than EU membership (I know it’s difficult to understand if you have lived in the EU your entire life but it’s really really not a big deal to be a member state). People need to consider the effect that current political decisions will have on the constitution as well. Let’s put it this way. The EU probably isn’t going to last that much longer. What will we be left with when it ends? Start at that point and work your way back. When you consider it that way the economic argument for not leaving like this (but leaving slowly) is very compelling. The political argument depends more on how you see the political system evolving (or not) in the UK.

"By ignoring the convention"

No, the referendum was only ever advisory, if people didn't know that its their fault.

We are not and never have been a direct democracy, and voting in the referendum was not about that, nor will it change it.

You appear to have been voting for, and want something that wasn't on the ballot, your own individual outcome.

Which of course is why all the leavers don't like May's deal, this is what Brexit looks like, not the fantasies in their heads.

For those saying leave, how do you propose resolving the Northern Island border issues without breaching the GF Agreement

I've asked this question of the few leave voters I know. Only one has answered. This was MIL, whose brilliant notion is the reunification of UK and ROI.

"The EU probably isn’t going to last that much longer. "

I love this prediction.

The same was that Brexit would be a dominoe effect right? How many parties that have leaving the EU as part of their manifesto have won elections in Europe since?

@IamPeas the compulsory voting system is problematic (and a pain in the arse to be frank). Its a bit absurd that you are forced to go to the polls in order to exercise your natural right to obstain from voting. There have also been concerns raised about donkey voting. There are also human rights implications. There are religious groups that believe that democracy is sinful. How do you reconsider that with compelling them to vote. Then of course you have to consider the cost. Australia is much smaller. It doesn’t take as long to count votes and filter out ruined/blank ballots. One of the things I really like about Britain is that o don’t have to explain myself/risk a fine if I don’t want to vote for whatever reason. Compulsory voting is not the end of the world but a bit pointless. Also worth remembering that only elections are compulsory in Australia. Plebiscites are opt in.

@borrisboggtrotter it’s a commonly held belief and common sense? I was recently Australia. Most people over there seem to think it’s going to crash and burn. I agree with them. The writing is on the wall with this one. Unless it reforms it will fail. The economic situation is precarious, it has been for a very long time. The EU is not going to last much longer in its present form is what I should have said.

@borisbogtrotter there is very limited precedent (which some view as convention) to follow advisory referendums. Conventions are very political in nature.

I'm quite surprised at the number of people who perceive EU membership as a left-wing "thing".

Imo, it's more of a centrist thing. That's why it's so impossible to find a way of leaving that satisfies both the ERG headbangers and the hard left.

The left-wing of the Labour party has largely been opposed to EU membership and in 1983 (when Michael Foot was Labour leader) leaving the EU was in the Labour manifesto. Tony Benn was famously anti the EU, on the basis that (inter alia) if UK voters voted for a socialist government, EU rules would prevent them from having one. George Galloway wants to see a no-deal Brexit.

Being a bit of an old-school libertarian socialist, I was conflicted about how to vote, but my pragmatic self considered that the economic impacts of Brexit (especially a no-deal Brexit) would affect poorer people disproportionately and I value the environmental, consumer and employment protection that the we get from EU membership, so I voted remain.

I'd be far more inclined to vote remain if there was a second referendum, now that the dodgy dealings and lies of the leave campaign have been laid bare.

"it’s a commonly held belief and common sense? "

How is it common sense? Some people believe the earth is flat it doesn't make it right.

Your perspectives all depend on who you talk to. Individual countries in the EU have issues, but very little is to do with the EU, and support for leaving it is very low.

"The EU is not going to last much longer in its present form is what I should have said."

What is now the EU has constantly changed and reformed throughout the years it has been operative. What is the difference?

"Most people over there seem to think it’s going to crash and burn. I agree with them. The writing is on the wall with this one. "

Depends on who you talk to doesn't it. I know people, very educated and influential people, who think that the EU, single markets and customs union model will be followed by other trade blocs in future. ASEAN and MERCOSUR are making moves in this direction.

The leaflet that the government delivered to every household stated - we will implement the decision (sorry I can't remember the exact wording.)
Didn't say it was advisory prior to the ref.

As for the EU “ not letting us leave” utter twaddle
They don’t want us to but they are not preventing it, they just won’t bend over backwards to help us do it - and why should they?
The EU is putting itself first, as an ex member we will enjoy none of its rights and advantages, the treatment we are getting now is simply a taster of life outside The EU.

Still never heard a good reason for leave.
Just a load of waffle.
The ""how the EU has treated us" thing is the funniest though.

The EU goaded us to have a Referendum, then refused to let us have our cake and eat it.
What was intended to be the easiest deal in history has been thwarted by the EU being awkward.
They have treated us very badly, and now they want to make us poorer.

"Didn't say it was advisory prior to the ref."

So what? Cameron also said he would implement it and declare article 50 on the day after the ref.

He didn't.

His government are no longer in power.

It was advisory, in law. It doesn't matter what the leaflet or anyone else said.

"The EU goaded us to have a Referendum, then refused to let us have our cake and eat it."

How?

"What was intended to be the easiest deal in history has been thwarted by the EU being awkward."

No the EU stuck to what it said at first, there is no deal better than membership. How has it been awkward?

"They have treated us very badly, and now they want to make us poorer."

Examples please.

Remain and remain again.

Knowing what we know now, I cannot understood why anyone would vote leave. I certainly cannot understand why anyone would think that no deal is a good option.

@marmeladerose please can you report this thread and get it moved to the Brexit topic as it is 100% aboutBrexit and not an AIBU.

Still never heard a good reason for leave.

And you never will because for you there are no acceptable reasons and never will be. Dunno why you keep repeating that - it's obvious.

Knowing what we know now, I cannot understood why anyone would vote leave. I certainly cannot understand why anyone would think that no deal is a good option.

Keep on repeating that, over and over and over, if it helps you in some way. It won't change the fact that some people did it - and judging by this thread, would do it again.

@Namechangeragain01
@BorisBogtrotter

You can’t really blame people for feeling misled when this is the government’s own literature?

Still never heard a good reason for leave

Nor will you - because you don’t think they’re good reasons. To other folks, they’re perfectly valid reasons. It would be a boring world if we all thought the same.

The thread should remain here. It is incredibly valid given the ghastly scenario with which we are likely to be faced after tonight’s Common’s vote.

@badlydrawnperson

Doesn't matter what the literature said.

In law it was advisory.

Mind you its the only bit of that literature that the leave vote seem to have taken as gospel, mainly cause it suits their purposes.

If the referendum had been binding it would have to be re run because of Leave's fraud.

@BorisBogtrotter

You repeat that endlessly: ‘it doesn’t matter what the literature said!’ because it suits your purposes.

My point is - the government’s own literature didn’t say the referendum was advisory, so people will obviously feel misled when they’re told untruths, no? Can you not see why people might be annoyed that the government spread misinformation?