Leavers being so dead against a second referendum is just proof they know they'll lose, surely?

[stillpinching]

If we had one and they won again it would be the ultimate confirmation that it really is the will of the people.

By refusing to countenance it and describing it as a betrayal they may as well say it's not the will of the people anymore we're insisting on honouring something no one with any sense and without a vested interest wants and we should therefore call it off.

We're being forced into something the people who most support it clearly know is no longer the people's choice that's going to do horrible damage to the country. Just why can no one stop it???

The Definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries.

Allowing an entirely new cohort of people to vote is a different thing entirely.

Grieve being president of the Pompidou/Heath Franco British Council, his mother being French, needing to follow in his father’s footsteps ... you’ve opened my eyes to a Francophile conspiracy.

Not.

The Franco-British Council is an independent organisation based in Paris and London. Our mission is to reflect the wide relationships between the two nations and promote constructive dialogue for enhanced future collaboration.

The Council was founded in 1972 on the joint initiative of President Georges Pompidou and Prime Minister Edward Health, in a context of a developing Europe and of an increasingly globalised community. Since then, it has dedicated itself to the promotion of a better mutual understanding and the development of joint action through bringing together leading representatives of the worlds of culture, politics, defence, science, education and business.

While the UK and France enjoy a long history of alliance and friendship, there is also a persisting cultural mistrust, a perception, often hidden behind jokes and clichés, that the nations can’t understand each other. The Council was formed to help confront these preconceived notions and encourage a better understanding between the two nations, leading to a more positive relationship, a greater dialogue and a more productive collaboration.

More than 40 years after its creation, in the current geopolitical context and Brexit, the Council’s mission resonates even more. Now more than ever, strong ties need to continue to be built between both nations, providing even more opportunities for people to engage at all levels.

The Council is a non-governmental organisation with charitable status. It has a bilateral governance with members and trustees in both countries. It receives funding from the British and French governments and generous partners

francobritish.org/en/about-us/

Yes, sounds a thoroughly sinister organisation. Now I know he is involved in that I am very suspicious of him, despite his seeming like such a nice chap.

I mean really, are we to mistrust someone because of their involvement in an organisation founded to further and improve our relationship with one of our closest neighbours? Are people only to be trusted if they are as inward-looking and xenophobic as can be? I despair...

stillpinching
Clavinova My God, that made my blood run cold; so many things falling into place...

I chose the word heartfelt carefully - a heartfelt (genuine) and unavoidable bias.

Bias towards what? Britain having a positive relationship with France? WTF is wrong with that??

LillithsFamiliar

Scrapping the 15-year limit after which British people who have left the UK lose their right to vote to formed part of the Conservative election manifesto in 2015.

So it seems that honouring election manifestos can be rather flexible after all?

The issue is fairness.

Should this group of people be allowed to vote because it is fair?
Not will it result in the decision I want.

Should British citizens who will be impacted by this decision be allowed to vote? Should people over 16 who will spend their lives living with this decision be allowed to vote.

What the end result would be is not the point. The question is should they be allowed to vote in the interest of fairness and representation?

I suspect the second referendum if there was one would be remain, leave with Mays deal or leave with no deal. It would split the leave vote so of course remain would win

I do believe there should be a vote but it should be leave with mays deal or leave with no deal. That's all. Already voted to leave and so remain shouldn't be on the table.

If the result had been remain then I as a leaver would have accepted it and moved on. It's very similar to the Scottish referendum debate - they want to keep running them until it's a yes to independence.

Whether or not you like it, more voted leave than remain and maybe if those who were eligible to vote (my DH for example) had voted then this whole discussion would be pointless as remain would probably have won.

It would split the leave vote so of course remain would win

No it wouldn't. It would not be run as FPTP election they would use some form of ranking system and a transferable vote. Google it.

It was shocking that the same manifesto that promised (a) to give 'votes for life' to Brits living outside the UK and (b) the referendum, excluded some British citizens from the referendum.

I don't think it would have caused Remain to win, but it was outrageous to exclude those overseas Brits from the vote given the manifesto promise.

I can just imagine the endless parliamentary votes about what the wording and criteria would be

Leave on Friday and get on with it. Or cancel it. We've all got so fed up of the overpaid suits in London bickering.

There were also a considerable number of expats who were eligible to vote but were unable to because their postal votes arrived too late, so the win / lose gap would likely have been even smaller in reality.

Caztonette And considering that Commonwealth citizens only temporarily resident in the UK could vote makes it even more outrageous. Gap year kids could vote.

BlitheringIdiots- Parliament will never allow No Deal on the ballot paper. A large majority of Parliament have rejected it outright and I dare say that many of those who support 'keeping it on the table' are doing so for the sake of bolstering negotiations and wouldn't actually recommend proceeding on that basis.

ContinuityError

So it seems that honouring election manifestos can be rather flexible after all?

Manifestos have always been flexible and not legally binding.

Windowsareforcheaters
The issue is fairness.

Not will it result in the decision I want.

Yet the "fairness" that you want will give you the "decision" that you want.

But I guess that is just a happy coincidence.

At least be honest about it.

BoneyBackJefferson

I know that, you know that, but someone needs to remind the Brexiteers of that when they keep shouting about honouring the referendum was a manifesto commitment and therefore sacrosanct.

ContinuityError

I'm going to start sounding like @Rufusthebewilderedreindeer before long.

At least put some before brexiteers/leavers.

some of us have been complaining about this for years and we are leavers and remainers.

Besides maybe some leavers wouldn't keep saying that it was mandated by the government if some remainers didn't keep saying that it was advisory.

We know.

BoneyBackJefferson

Sorry - I meant Brexiteers as in the nutty ERG types, not as in rational Leavers. I’m sick of hearing that manifestos are set in stone and must be adhered to at all costs when that’s clearly bollox.

Although the term Brexiteer makes them sound like swashbuckling pirates rather than sweaty red faced men or women with an interesting choice of jackets.

That was Francois and Leadsom to avoid any confusion.

I'm a staunch Remainer but I find the 'advisory' argument entirely hollow. It's the sort of argument I'd dismiss out of hand if my 'side' won. Ditto 'lies' - as if that's a new feature of political campaigns.

Of the arguments as to why there should be a second referendum, that are directly tied to deficiencies in the first, I think overspending by the Leave campaign is a valid criticism, as is the lack of a specific model of Brexit. However, whilst they are valid criticisms, I don't think you can have a second referendum on the basis of them alone. I doubt the overspend was casually linked to the outcome.

We're it not for deadlock in Parliament, I'd say that a second referendum isn't warranted, even if I'd personally want one to stop Brexit.

It's the fact that Parliament are seemingly incapable of deciding how to deliver Brexit, and how unhappy many Leave voters are with (a) May's Deal, and (b) any of the alternatives that did well (but still lost) in the indicative votes, that makes me think a Second Referendum could suit all parties and actually allow us to move forward, one way or another.

BoneyBackJefferson

Yet the "fairness" that you want will give you the "decision" that you want.

At least be honest about it

Well thanks for telling me what I think. Actually I don't think the rules should change for citizens more than 15 years outside the U.K.. The rule is there for valid reasons and it should stand. I think it's fair.

I do think 16 year olds should vote but I agree with lowering the voting age in all elections.

The point I was making is that decisions on who should vote should be considered without reference to the potential outcome. It's only fair.

The Definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of district boundaries.

That has been known for years by the independent panel as favoring Labour

I find the 'advisory' argument entirely hollow

It is not hollow it is constitutionally correct.

I am getting increasingly depressed with the British Publics inability to differentiate between constitutional legality and their own opinions.

It was advisory.
We have representatives not delegates.
The EU is democratic.

These are facts not opinions.

@JustAnotherLurker

Gerrymandering did benefit Labour throughout the 1990s and up to 2010. It has benefited the Conservatives in the last two elections.

www.electoral-reform.org.uk/its-not-just-the-boundaries-that-need-reviewing-its-first-past-the-post/