Does anyone actually agree with Barry Gardiner that a fresh public vote on exit terms would cause "social unrest"?

[Figmentofmyimagination]

Myself, I think this is embarrassing rubbish on so many levels.

He says there is there is "more to this than simple economics - there is also the social, the democratic principles at play here".

I don't know anyone who thinks a vote on the terms of exit is about "simple economics", and anyway, his simplistic bid to differentiate between "economics" and "social and democratic principles" just sets up a false dichotomy - yet another face-saving smokescreen.

In any event, the odds of "social unrest" if the decision is reversed are vanishingly small, especially when compared with the social unrest we will see if Brexit is a disaster and the social contract breaks down.

No, absolutely not. He's peddling brexiteer ideology like the rest of them. Disgraceful.

I cannot think why anyone who believes in democracy would be offended by a bit more of the same ? be so offended in fact they decided to show their displeasure by kicking off in the streets. I think it also depends when it happens, only a few more weeks of Summer left, once it returns to cold and dark and miserable, I think the desire to participate in social unrest will dissipate.

No don't agree with him, it's a bit OTT.

I think the PM should come out and say we need a fresh referendum due to the "flexing" and down right breaking of the rules for the first. It wasn't a just and true democratic process. By being open and frank about how it went wrong that should hopefully ease the fears of those who believe a fresh ref would be damaging.

As opposed to the social unrest we'll have when no deal beckons, the NHS runs short of medicines and the shops run low on supplies? I know which I'd rather risk.

I think we're far more likely to have social unrest when if people are going hungry after a cliff edge Brexit. One of the reasons the Brexit campaign won, so they themselves tell us, is by getting the politically unmotivated to go and vote for the first time. These are not the kind of people to go rioting because someone has saved them from themselves...

I heard Robert Peston say a similar thing at the Aye Write Festival last year: in his view, the previously uninvolved, having been motivated to vote, even if the target of their anger was misguided, would be forever disillusioned from politics and the democratic process if "their" vote was ignored.

He managed to say this in Scotland without a hint of irony

I didn't agree with him then and I don't agree with him now. If they were that apathetic that they'd never voted, I'm not sure they'd actually riot. The fact that they wanted to give the government a bloody nose? Well, they've done that and as a result the government has wasted millions if not billions (in both direct and indirect costs & opportunity costs) on the Brexit process

So a democratic vote can undermine ... a democratic vote ?

Let's abolish general elections then. After all, the losing side "might be unhappy".

I'm for a vote on the terms of exiting, but I do agree that such a vote could cause unrest. There's a strong voice of "patriots" and Tommy Robinson type knuckle draggers amongst the Brexit brigade, and it doesn't take much to get them fighting, even when they haven't the first idea of what they're fighting about.

(On balance, there are also some perfectly normal and rational Leave voters, just that the former tend to shout far louder.)

But I also agree that a no deal Brexit has the potential to cause unrest by the same group. People aren't going to like it when they finally realise they were sold a lie.

Feels like we're buggered either way.

No more so than a hard Brexit will.

I'm for a vote on the terms of exiting,

And if you're not happy with the terms of exiting ?

I'm a committed Remainer. I won't be happy with any terms of exiting.

What is meant by a vote on the terms of exiting? What would the ballot paper say?

Exactly Morris

They can hardly give us a 1000+ page detailed document of all the points because a) it doesn't exist and b) the issues are too many.

There is no time to come up with multiple scenarios to choose from.

As such, there is no reasonable way to ask us to vote - vote on what?

My ultimate fear is we get asked if we accept 'The Deal' or not. And people who have no understanding of the implications vote 'no' and we end up with no deal.

What is meant by a vote on the terms of exiting? What would the ballot paper say?

Excellent question ! And one reason why I am about the idea of a second referendum. I tried to teach DS that "two wrongs don't make a right". And it was never more true than in the case of the so-pisspoor-it's-being-used-as-an-example-in-business-cases-of-a-disastrous-decision-referendum.

We won't fix that wrong with another crap referendum.

We also don't commit to a disaster because it's too much work to avoid it. I can't think of anything more unBritish.

My ultimate fear is we get asked if we accept 'The Deal' or not. And people who have no understanding of the implications vote 'no' and we end up with no deal

Only if the referendum allows for it. There's no reason why the ballot paper couldn't say "this is the best deal we are going to get. Yes. Or No."

With No being simply revoke A50, and as you were.

Personally that seems to achieve the twin goal of providing democratic oversight. and holding the Leave side to their rhetoric. After all they're the ones who told us what great deals we'd get. Well, now's their big moment in the ballot box spotlight.

Voted Remain.
Second ballot is the wrong thing to do. If Leaving the EU sends us over a cliff, this is what just over a third of the electorate voted for.
I am alright as both a prepper and a citizen of an EU nation - Ireland.
I didn't used to think "sod them". I do now.

The rightwing tabloids might well to try to stir up civil disobedience - just take a look at the inflamatory daily diet of the Express for instance.

But the last thing we should do is to cave in to that irresponsible threat. Surely we care enough about our future and our children's future to make an effort to stop brexit?

The Metro asked its readers- What should Britain do?
Result- Remain93% No deal6% Deal1%

metro.co.uk/2018/07/18/people-prefer-remain-eu-face-no-deal-brexit-poll-finds-7732779/?ito=cbshare

As a democrat I find it repellant that 'fear of social unrest' (fear of a small band of thugs, effectively) is being touted by the Labour Party as a legitimate concern in relation to this question. It is outrageous.

If Labour had the masses of grass root support across the nation that it claims, their Remain supporting Beloved Leader would have swung the vote behind him and we wouldn't be in this mess .... no , wait....

I think there are areas of the uk where social unrest is a possibility, regardless of whether we have another vote or not. It’s very worrying.

No one talking openly about civil unrest is helping the situation so I’d rather Labour turned their attention to something more generally constructive.
Regardless of the final outcome, we’re going to need people putting a lot of effort into community cohesion, for everyone’s sake.

What would the question be ?
Would it be a leave/stay ? Highly unlikely imo as it's a rerun of the first Referendum and a back door way of overturning it. Or Deal on table/no deal ? Piss poor options.

Which is all very well @Seniorschoolmum - but if those rioting voted for this shitshow why should a penny of my taxes go to being all cuddly to them?

I’m not thinking about today’s taxes, I’m thinking about the communities we and our kids are going to be living in, being split down lines based on all this anger and resentment.
I don’t want my dcs growing up in that sort of climate, regardless of the politics. It’s not healthy for anyone.

We got lots of EU money to be cuddly. And it was ignored.

I just think that political situations can be altered, adjusted, maybe even reversed over time, whereas civil unrest can damage lives physically beyond repair.
So talking down the situation and preventing that kind of damage has to be a good thing.

"As a democrat I find it repellant that 'fear of social unrest' (fear of a small band of thugs, effectively) is being touted by the Labour Party as a legitimate concern in relation to this question. It is outrageous."

^^ this. Just had the same discussion with DH. If the concern is about upholding democracy, how on earth is it democratic to oppose a vote because of threats of unrest. That sounds more like appeasement to me.