Parliamentary motion tabled for second referendum

[CaptainBrickbeard]

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/30/second-eu-referendum-pull-us-out-of-fire-make-happen?client=safari#

I strongly suspect my link doesn't work, sorry if that's the case. There is a Guardian article by Geraint Davies, Swansea MP explaining the motion he and David Lammy have tabled with regards to a second referendum, this time on the exit package.

The proposition is that a second referendum is held, giving voters the choice between the exit package available to us and staying in the UK. Effectively, this is the same referendum but this time without the two central lies of the Leave campaign - the £350 million to the NHS and the control of immigration. In terms of the Remain 'Project Fear', people could take into account the actual economic effects which have already been felt. It would be a far more informed choice.

I don't feel that this option challenges democracy in the way that some people felt another identical rederendum would. My anger at the result is based on the two fundamental untruths at the heart of the Leave campaign which I feel misled an enormous amount of voters. Who knows how a referendum without these lies would go? According to MN Leave voters, those two lies had no effect on their decision to vote Leave - if that is reflected around the country, the result will be the same. Personally, I could accept that as fair whereas I cannot accept this result when it appears to me that so many people believed they were voting to control immigration and free an enormous sum of money for the NHS, neither of which is at all true. It would be interesting to see if a second chance galvanised young voters or if they remained apathetic. Would turnout be higher or would it drop? Which way would the undecided or non voters go if they voted again? Are there really over a million Leavers with buyers' remorse or is the country full of Regretful Remainers berating themselves for cowardice? Would this deepens the horrific divisions - the racism, the ageism, the classism etc that we've seen?

I've set my stall out numerous times on here, I'm an angry Remainer and I want this second referendum to go ahead, I believe that once people know there will be freedom of movement and no extra money for the NHS even if we leave that an awful lot of them will not want to leave anymore. I an furious that Leave were able to make these claims, backtrack immediately and not be held to account. That to me is the attack on democracy, not a second referendum.

Whether Brexit happens or not, I think we are in for a huge amount of civil unrest, deep anger and disappointment, political turmoil - this whole campaign has been bitter, divisive and deeply felt for a huge range of reasons so I think we are in for hard times ahead whether we exit the EU or a way is found to stay.

If you want this referendum to go ahead, write to your MP to tell them to support the motion.

[ItsAllGoingToBeFine]

I don't think we can have another referendum

[AdrenalineFudge]

As European leaders have emphatically said that no talks can start until we invoke Article 50 I think we'd be between a rock and a hard place wrt a second referendum. Once article 50 is invoked there's no way back thus there's no package to 'decide' on as we'd still be on track to leave. It's pretty shit all round.
Roses we're all speculating. Surely that's what this discussion board is about?

[AdrenalineFudge]

53rdAndBird I do agree that a re-run would be viewed by most as the same question. The 350million NHS claim was debunked multiple times by multiple people before the vote but it was still ignored. I know a few people who voted leave purely just to see what would happen as it's a historical first (if you ignore Greenland as that was a squabble about something entirely different).

[gettingtogreat]

It won't happen. It has been confirmed repeatedly this week in Parliament, that it won't happen.

As an aside, do people who want this second referendum realise that they are dictators?

[SaltyMyDear]

When New Zealand went from First Past the Post to Mixed Proportional Representation we had 2 referendums. 1 to see if we wanted to change the model. And the 2nd to see which model we wanted to use (or something like that)

It would be perfectly sensible to have another referendum now which asked people what they wanted by 'leave'.
eg

1. 'the Norway model'
   
2. 'no trade deals with the EU if it included free movement of people'
   
3. remain
   

or whatever, but getting down to details about what the country wants our politicians to negotiate for. Because 'leave' could mean absolutely anything.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

Yes, I put the idea forwards based mainly on the fact that I am a dictator. Hence my fondness for referenda, the well known tool of the dictator.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

Also, what Salty said.

[Calamara]

I voted to leave the EU, but I think this would be a good idea and in the interest of democracy.

I would still vote Leave now, but I would be open minded to changing my mind, depending on the terms agreed. This would require two sets of discussions though - the terms of our relationship if we leave and the terms of our relationship if we stay.

The EU needs to change. At the moment senior politicians in Brussels, France and Germany go on about the UK not being able to 'cherry pick' what suits us, but the result is a one-size-fits-all EU that actually fits no one. The current approach causes tensions and problems in every EU country, not just here. If they are serious about the EU surviving they need to embrace an a la carte approach that leaves more key decision making powers in the hands of each member state.

[StatisticallyChallenged]

I would personally like to see another referendum once the package is outlined. This was always one of my issues with the Scottish referendum too, people were voting for random promises (sometimes vague, sometimes bizarrely specific) which there was no way of guaranteeing because the 'deal' was dependent on the outcome of negotiations between two countries.

But, as far as I am aware the problem with this approach is that the EU will not start negotiations without us enacting article 50, and article 50 doesn't have a reverse mechanism i.e. once it's started it may not be possible to stop it even if the outcome was put to a referendum and the UK voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU.

[AdrenalineFudge]

But to back to your main question OP, I think another ref on the package would be impossible not least because the EU don't want to engage in talks until we invoke the leave article. How would we overcome that stumbling block?

I for one think Juncker is a snake in that should go - but he won't. And secondly I don't think the EU is interested in giving us any more concessions. I think they've had it with us. So any 'new' package would still be a bum deal. I'm hoping that this will be the impetus the EU needs to reform in order to deter other countries from following suit. But it's an old and very bureaucratic organisation - I used to work at the Commission and it would take ages for anything to go through. I genuinely think the leaders - that is of the EU institutions (not the member states) are pleased with this result as this means we won't be there to stop them from implementing their ever closer union plans.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

You're right that it would be speculation on the package we are going to try to negotiate - the motion seems to suggest we would base it on informal talks which we already know are not going to happen.

I just think that if we implement the result of this referendum, most people are unhappy. The Remainers are unhappy and so are the Leavers who voted for a different vision of Brexit to what is actually realistic or possible. It doesn't seem like a shining example of democracy to me. Someone from Vote Leave should be held to account for the battle bus promise and the claims about immigration. I understand that not all general election promises are kept, but this is different.

[harryhausen]

I much as I wanted the outcome to be different, this second referendum just can't happen.

Why? Because all the remaining EU countries have said they will not negotiate anything, not even theoretically, until Article 50 is begun - after which we will have officially left.

They'll be nothing to have a referendum on because we won't know any terms.

[AdrenalineFudge]

And also captain, a second ref on the package would be viewed by the EU as us just being 'difficult' and wanting special treatment again - which we've wanted for as long as we've been a member.

I think it's only right that they're fed up. I'm half Dutch and the only reason I feel bad about this is because I'm English too - if I were fully Dutch or from another member state I think I'd be holding the door open telling the UK to get shot - for far too long we've been difficult.

I also think the EU has to treat us like this to prevent others following suit - imagine if they agreed to a new even better deal than what we had - there'd be referendums across the bloc instantly.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

Yep, adrenaline, I completely agree. What a fucking mess!

[StatisticallyChallenged]

Agreed, whatever deal we end up with is going to be considerably worse than what we've had previously.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

Gove has just declared he will end freedom of movement. And give £100m weekly to the NHS by 2020. I guess the end to freedom of movement means coming out of the single market. If our options are that, a Norway type deal or staying in then I wonder what the public would choose.

[WaitroseTrolley]

I thought even pro-Brexit economists said leaving the single market would be disastrous?

[Winterbiscuit]

Exactly Piglet. The EU and the remain side aren't beacons of righteousness. Cameron working on supporting "remain" before his negotiations had even finished, he had told the EU he was a "winner" but simultaneously telling the British public he was still "not ruling out" leaving the EU , Osborne's disingenuous £4300 "per household", the overblown (and rapidly abandoned) plans for a "punishment budget", Martin Lewis appearing in the "Stronger In" leaflet without being asked, Sir Michael Rose's signature added to a pro-remain letter without his permission.

Denial of the EU's plans for a superstate, which already shortly after the referendum has been proposed, the German and French foreign ministers saying "“We will therefore strive for a political union in Europe and invite the next Europeans to participate in this venture.”

Sorry, Chancellor, but the economic argument for the EU has not been won. Here’s why

I am very relieved Osborne and Hunt aren't standing for PM. I stand by wanting to leave the EU despite the uncertainty and challenges of Brexit. Already the dust is starting to settle, a number of unsuitable politicians are climbing down, concessions are starting to be made, the FTSE is going back up, a team is being put together for negotiations. The long-term outlook is so much better than being in the failing, unreformable EU.

[CaptainBrickbeard]

Gove is proud to be different - remember, he told us all to disregard experts. He strikes me as dangerous because he wants to destroy everything in order to create change.

Mind you, at least he has a plan. It seems like a supremely shitty one but at least one bloody Brexiteer has a clue about what to do next, even if it is a comprehensive way to fuck everything up even more.

[AdrenalineFudge]

Gove at the moment is promising us the moon on a stick. He must have to in order to come out of this with some sort of glory. He's a slimy toad - he said that he didn't actually even want to run for leader but now feels he must. I've never been a fan of the tories but a conservative government without EU restrictions turns my blood cold. I'd even campaign for Cameron to stay. That said, I agree, if we're going to leave then let's run the whole gamut - let's leave entirely.

captain I think the public would choose to stay out entirely in that case. A Norway type deal would of course mean that we have keep the status quo but no seat at the top table. That said, do you think they'd realise what it means? Leavers keep referring to Switzerland and Norway as if it's the same thing. The Swiss can would be fine with telling the whole world to fuck off. Norway is in a basket. What will become of us?

[Calamara]

They are all talking about restricting freedom of movement as a red line unfortunately.

I don't know if it will help, but Switzerland has until January to implement the results of a referendum that requires it to restrict freedom of movement from the EU (they are in Schengen but not the EU).

Also, Austria have just announced that the presidential elections must be re-run because the Green president won by only 800,00 votes, on the back of postal votes that added up to a greater number of people than those on the electoral role in some areas). The EU will be worried about a far right president being elected and may start to think meaningfully about whether ever closer union is something that people in Europe actually want.

[catbasilio]

What Salty said. I dread someone like Gove singlehandedly deciding to end freedom of movement (and trade for that matter!). There is no disadvantage of having a second referendum. If leavers still want to leave, let it be! But let everyone make a more informed choice.

I hear what you say about the exit package - impossible to define before triggering the Article 50. However you could put down options like Norway or Switz or "out of the single market" ... or remain.

I think this makes sense and so I am very much for the 2nd referendum!!

[AdrenalineFudge]

cat do you honestly think the electorate would understand that? I'm not shouting from my ivory tower of intellectualism but I highly doubt that most people would get it.

[WaitroseTrolley]

This article is primarily about a new far-right party (such fun), but also mentions Arron Banks (biggest donor to Leave campaign) stating the immigration was 100% main concern. Concerns about schools and education just proxies for this. Sorry if this has already been stated, I've just found it.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/29/leave-donor-plans-new-party-to-replace-ukip-without-farage

[MotherOfBleach]

Amazing with a poster such as yourself in the family that this person still has these allusions? Very odd

I cannot write my claims in big, shiny letters on the side of a bus. I have tried explaining things to him, but he saw it on a bus, it's on Facebook, it's true. I can sign post him to articles in the Guardian or the Times or the BBC news but he doesn't understand them. Big, shiny letters are easy to hold on to. Articles referring to things you've never heard of before are not.

Lave framed their lies in a way that was easy for these people to understand, Remain's arguments were far more complex and relied upon people having at least a basic knowledge of the EU, economics and politics. A lot of people in poorer areas do not have that. Not because they are stupid, not because they are incapable of learning but because we simply do not have the same access to higher education as wealthier areas, the generations before us were manual workers - hard working, intelligent men and women, who did not instill in us the same value on education as in wealthier areas, people in our social circles do not read the Times and do not discuss politics with us. Leave understood that and they exploited that.

In my relatives case and that of his bigoted FB following, I have come to the conclusion that you cannot argue with stupid.

I'm not sure what circles you move in, but where I am from very few people have a higher education beyond college, many, especially the older gneration do not even have that.

Most people in my town, who I have spoken to still do not understand what they were voting for. They don't understand what the EU is beyond what the Fail tells them.

The same will be true across a lot of the north east (though not all of it)

The areas who voted most in favour of leave are the areas who are least likely to have understood what they were voting for and what the implications were.