Do you think there will be a 2nd referendum?

[oweus]

Many of my friends and acquaintances seem to think so. I still think it's unlikely.

@starfish2020 I’ve put my views on the other referendum thread if you care to pop over there you can see the points I’m interested in gaining a remainers perspective on. Thanks

I’m not scrolling through all that, tell us on here.

Windows thanks. There were a few other questions relating to the treaty but I think k we agree that we are not now in a position to influence the EU and even if we revoke we will not have support of the historically dissenting nations. I guess we differ in our views on what would have happened if we had stayed in the EU With qualified majority voting we would have a lot less say in matters going forward and our opt outs leave us outside the what seem like key focuses of the EU in any case so had even less say in the direction of the EU (a point I would guess we also interpret differently)

Homefireburn and therein lies the crux of the issue. Can’t be arsed to put in a bit of effort to look at the arguments and wants to be spoon fed a summary/soundbites

Eh why should I? You’ve got a question you ask it. Posters don’t generally expect other posters to go and hunt for their questions.

QMV was a potential pitfall but if we had focused on alliance building we stood a good chance of pushing back (in a positive way) against the Franco-German axis.

As always if we had built on what we had in a positive way we could have been a strong and focused counter balance.

I support the EU but the EU needs a strong opposition, a loyal opposition within its structures.

But we have burnt our bridges and then pissed on the bonfire we made with the bridge remnants.

@windows 'democratic checks and balances'.

Staggered that even on Mumsnet the word democratic and EU is used in the same sentence.

Hah, hah, hah, etc etc.

Homefireburn - what can I say, I’m the kind of person who likes to think outside the box, think creatively, doesn’t seek safety in the status quo and doesn’t see the point in reinventing the wheel. Maybe if remainers didn’t insist on the validity of keep asking the same people the same question we could have all been on the same thread. Now there’s an idea!

You’re talking nonsense. If you’ve got a question ask it if not move along.

@ChavvyOldBrexiteer

Hahahaha can you read?

I explained exactly why the EU is democratic below (no need to look at another thread) and I reference other democratic countries to highlight the points I make.

If you want to explain, using other democracies as reference points, exactly why the EU is not democratic I would be very interested to listen.

@starfish; you query what the 'average Joe' has to gain from leaving the unaudited corporate racket that is the EU.

Why don't you ask one? You know, in real life? I know Mumsnet Remainers are an exclusive, fantastically well-educated and all together superior crew, but surely you must know some 'average' Leave voters that could enlighten; after all, there are 17.4 million of them.

I think we will be given enough time by the EU to enable another referendum. I suspect the options will be a) leaving with no deal, b) leaving with some sort of deal (yet to be suggested) and c) remain. This would split what was left of the leave vote and put remain in a significant majority. None of the major parties would lose too much sleep over voters feeling disenfranchised if the result was overturning Brexit.

Would you like to paint this room:
A)white; or B)another colour?
Blue wasn't mentioned by anyone at the time.

That's not actually correct - in the government document linked to in the other thread (the one that SodaPoppins' is referring to?) - blue (WTO/no-deal) and several other shades of Brexit are discussed in some detail:

"1.1 This paper looks at the potential models for the UK’s relationship with the European Union, if there were to be a vote to leave.It provides examples of countries that are not members of the EU but have other arrangements with it–specifically Norway, Switzerland, Canada and Turkey–and describes those arrangements."

"It also looks at a possible relationship based only on World Trade Organisation membership." ...

"If we could not reach agreement with the EU on a new arrangement, our trading arrangements would revert to WTO rules.This would provide the most complete break with the EU."

"(c)WTO membership.The UK, like all other EU countries, is a member of the WTO. If the UK had not agreed a new relationship with the EU by the time we left, then we would revert to our common membership of the WTO as the basis for trade–just like Brazil does in its trade with the EU."

Of course, the government warns against choosing any colour other than white (and especially blue) but the Leave vote won nevertheless - and the blue tin of paint was definitely in the basket at the till.

Well done windowsareforcheaters for trying to keep it factual amid the hysteria.

All polls show a huge swing to remain, and if you spend any time at all on social media you will have noticed the tidal wave of remainernow messages including prominent supporters of Leave (Peter Oborne, just yesterday). All but the extreme can see we're buggered if it happens.

Can we bring this back to basics though, above the trade deals, those who think no deal will keep 'our heads high', please explain to me how the you can think it's ok that life saving drugs will be in shortage if we go all out no deal. I just don't get it.

The more the whole thing goes on, I find the Leave campaign dirtier and dirtier, and all unvolved becoming less credible by the day. I mean, how can you put your faith in clearly corrupt characters like JRM, Farage, Boris, Gove. These men are the Trumps of the Uk. Criminal acts proven, more fraud suggested, involvement with Russia,Tommy Robinson and the far right.

Which is why I think a 2nd ref is inevitable. Nobody can get us out of this situation and the government knows the only option is to bail. But for credibility there needs to be a vote.

I think we will be given enough time by the EU to enable another referendum.I suspect the options will be a) leaving with no deal

Parliament won't allow that option now.

@windows; MEP's cannot even propose legislation, they just rubber stamp the laws of the unelected EU commission.

The trouble is Remainers did not and still do not know what they were voting for.

I think there should be however I don't think there will be

“@starfish; you query what the 'average Joe' has to gain from leaving the unaudited corporate racket that is the EU.

Why don't you ask one? You know, in real life? I know Mumsnet Remainers are an exclusive, fantastically well-educated and all together superior crew, but surely you must know some 'average' Leave voters that could enlighten; after all, there are 17.4 million of them.“

Well considering where I am unfortunately I am not in a position to do that

And chavyoldbrexiteer I did try asking some of the 17.4 why they voted leave:
One told me she thought a recession would mean she could upgrade her house to a 4 bed, another told me she 'didn't like all those foreigners stabbing people' and the third told me 'we fought the war and should be ruling Europe not being ruled by it'. All read the Daily Mail.

Would you like to paint this room:A)white; or B)another colour?

Not quite a perfect analogy. The room is already white.

What’s the point? They didn’t honour the first one so why would they honour another leave vote?

Be honest. People only want a second ref because they want to stop Brexit. No remainer is looking to “confirm the public mood”.

The more the whole thing goes on, I find the Leave campaign dirtier and dirtier

I've found the Remain campaign to be dirtier and dirtier - e.g. Stephen Hammond (the Health Minister) referring to body bags in his correspondence.

What’s the point? They didn’t honour the first one so why would they honour another leave vote?

(round and round)

so what exactly should have been done ?

Windows, the thing is I really don’t think we would ever have garnered enough support to form an effective coalition against the french and German alliance.we have made several attempts to change from within but it has either resulted in rejection or opt outs, the EU presses ahead anyway.. Although Denmark and Poland (occasionally Ireland) have opted out and otherwise dissented from key provisions we have generally only had one friend on each provision (Denmark more reliably than most -but as a Dane once told me they are naturally contrary). I really think we would have been fighting an uphill battle. Reading the treaty talking about social and economic cohesion, joined up judicial processes, common defence strategies, national parliaments only acting in an advisory capacity the goals of an ever closer union are being rung loud and proud. Everyone has different views as to where this would ultimately go, I have my views as I’m sure you have yours. As you know from previous discussions I have a major concern how the civil law/investigative judicial system v the common law/adversarial system fits in with this ever closer union. I know we have opted out of the justice articles with piecemeal opt ins but I’m not sure how sustainable this is in the long term

But yes it’s the QMV that really kills it for me, by the EUs own admission it was felt this move was necessary with 27 states to ensure the continued functionality of the EU legislature. It was effectively confirming that it knew the members states had different goals to each other but was going to force everyone along with the majority even if it was to the detriment of an individual state.