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???

I honestly think we need one if only so that we can confirm that most people do not want to be part of the EU.

I voted remain, in a new referendum I would vote leave to protect our democracy.

You can't have another go at the 100m race in the Olympics because "he only won by 0.03 of a second." Leave won. We have to get on with it. If you want another referendum in a decade so be it, but the people were told the government would implement their decision time and time again. They've yet to implement it and the goal posts keep changing.

No wonder Leave voters are so enraged by the whole thing.

I think anything that prolongs this god awful mess is a problem.

Another referendum a year or 2 ago? Fine

My objection to a referendum is nothing to do with who might win or lose but only to do with the fact that it will simply prolong the uncertainty.

Leave won. We will eventually get a No Deal, life goes on.

Coach I've heard some other remainers say the same.
If I was remain I would do the same thing. . it's bonkers

I voted leave and would again . Many people in my office did too , our remainer boss calls us racists and make offensive comments about us . I don’t want a federal Europe , read what going on between Switzerland and eu at the moment !

I think we can reasonably assume at this point that Parliament is in favour of remaining or accepting TM's diabolical deal, and Parliament will also be in charge of writing the referendum questions - herein lies the problem.

An election makes far more sense - what good is a new mandate with the same parliament? It's a more nuanced/finely grained way of getting the same result as a referendum, it's binding and candidates can stand on whatever Brexit platform they like.

This is all looking very much like a stitch-up to me, the country voted leave and then a remain PM was installed, leading a remain Parliament, never preparing for no deal, and surprise surprise, the whole thing looks like a big mess now! Frustrate the electorate, then withdraw Article 50.

I think I read somewhere that every poll says people would still vote to leave, it's only london who want to remain

Scotland too. 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

Doesn't the fraud bother you, Coach?

Given the referendum would have been void, because of fraud, if it had been binding rather than advisory, how would it be undemocratic to run it again? It would be more undemocratic to honour a result obtained fraudulently, surely?

Democracy relies on transparency, otherwise there is no democracy.

To my mind, another referendum that is run more tightly, with stricter control of illegal funding, unfounded claims and infiltration of social media by hostile foreign powers invested in weakening the U.K., would be a far better option for democracy

The trouble with an election, Alaskan, is that there is no real choice for remainers, given we don't have an effective opposition committed to, you know, opposing.

I expect most leavers are even more hardened leavers, and remainers are even more hardened remainers.

The only thing that has changed is the demography of the electorate, and this is in Remain's favour.

I voted remain and I am against another referendum for a multitude of reasons.

And actually, I think that leave would win by a far greater margin next time round. I know far more remain voters who would vote leave next time than leave voters who would vote remain.

The trouble with an election, Alaskan, is that there is no real choice for remainers, given we don't have an effective opposition committed to, you know, opposing.

Lib dem?

But most of us our homeless now. I have no idea about the laws surrounding the establishment of a new party, but there are going to be a lot of Conservative and Labour voters looking for someone to honour the original manifesto.

The Leavers are not frightened of another vote in my opinion...the problem they have is that democracy is being messed about with and not respected by the remainers....it is a very dangerous precedence to set....democracy is not vote vote vote til one side/person gets their own way....this applies to Brexit and anything else ....

Theoretically yes, Alaskan, but in reality people will find it difficult to vote for them for other reasons. For an election to be an accurate reflection of voters' preferences, we would need the two main parties with policies just either side of the centre, with equally competent leaders, but with diametrically opposed policies on Brexit. We don't have that.

A further issue is that any party would find it difficult to revoke without a direct referendum. Neither Labour nor the Tories would have the backbone to do that.

I am politically homeless too, sadly. I'm very interested in Change-UK TIG, but they unfortunately haven't had time to form a coherent party with coherent policies as yet.

It's all a hot mess.

Sigh.

Sally democracy does need transparency, truth, and freedom from tampering.

I'm interested as to why some people seem unconcerned by the fact the referendum was subverted. Why is it not an issue for some? Is it that we've become used to being lied to by politicians? This went far further than that, though, with the Russian influence. How come people are not bothered by that?

It's more like re-running the 100 m sprint final because it transpires the winner was on steroids.

Good analogy, TaMere, though of course, in that scenario, the gold is just given to the runner up...

A new referendum would thus be more than generous, in the circumstances!

2) Having a referendum means having EU elections in May which they do not want

Nothing worse than being ruled by unelected Brussels bureaucrats, except having to elect the buggers in the first place.

I don't think an electorate campaign to date has not had a expenses scandal. I'm sure the GE where Cameron won a majority there was some form of expenses/spending issue with the campaign.

And I don't remember to date when we weren't lied to by politicians...so I don't see how the referendum was any different from the last GE. We don't go around re-doing GE's though, they just pay the fine and move on. 🤷

I didn't vote last time but if there were a second referendum I would vote leave as would dh
I know a lot of prep has been done for a no deal brexit and I don't think it will be chaotic at all

You are of course correct that there have been shady dealings in other elections/polls, Coach.

The difference with the referendum was the scale of the interference, which has been judged in a court to be so egregious and far-reaching that it amounted to fraud, i.e. the leave result was bought.

Had the referendum been legally binding on the government, it would have been null and void, and a re-run would have been unavoidable.

This crosses a line, clearly. I can only think of one example in recent times where interference was proved similarly, the election of councillor Rahman in Tower Hamlets. In that case, he lost his seat, i.e. the result was null and void.

Given that the stakes here are way, way higher than the election of one councillor, it beggars belief that we are blithely glossing over massive levels of corruption, in the way that the powers that be seem to be intent on.

Apart from all the lies from our own politicos, which I won't rehash here, there has been corrupt interference from Russia, which may well have swung the outcome. They are clearly not doing this for our benefit, but in order to destabilise the EU/the west.

Are we not honour-bound to ensure any outcome of any referendum we act on is safe? Especially given the stakes, which are massive.

We cannot give in to apathy in this way, surely.

Really Dana ? So the fact that pretty much every economist or analyst say that it will be bad for the country to leave with no deal bothers you not one jot?

Yvette Coopers amendment to take no deal off the table won by one vote, last week. Therefore any new referendum would consist of

1. Remain
2. Leave with The Deal

If Corbyn gets his way the deal will include remaining in the Customs Union and single market and keeping freedom of movement.

Leavers don't want either of those options. They have nothing to vote for.

I read somewhere, yesterday, that TM can overturn YC's amendment. I bet she won't as she wants to leave with a deal.

We'll be paying big bucks to pretend we're leaving.

i am a remainer, I think a second referendum would be a disaster for a number of reasons.

1. it would be betraying democracy
2. it would get the same result
3. with a bigger margin.

The situation now is intolerable and cannot continue. The MP's calling for remain are those in remain seats in metropolitan areas. The labour vote would be destroyed in the heartlands were they to come out as remain. The membership of the labour party who set the policy at conference are a tiny proportion of the electorate.
I think Caroline Flint et al who wrote the letter last week was right, Ideally it would be revoked, but no deal cannot be allowed to happen.