Brexiteers, if there was a 'People's Vote' how would you vote?

[millsbynight]

For me? I'd flatly vote No Deal.

Would others vote to stay in the EU or agree to Teresa May's deal?

Everyone I know who voted Leave would still vote Leave (the same goes for those who voted Remain) so I'd be really curious to see what the outcome of a 2nd referendum would generate.

The world is indeed a big place and the EU has loads of deals with it. My sibling is working in S America. They have an Eu passport; spouse does not. Spouse has to pay a thousand for work visa. Sibling pays a couple of hundred.

I voted leave. Would now vote remain.

Three leavers (who still discuss) have said they'd now vote remain, 2 because they want the whole shitshow to go away, 1 because he thinks it was a mistake.
None want this deal because it will then just carry on and on and on.

We are looking at the next 2 years for the WA and probably another 2 or 3 years to sort out the FTA (min) so another 5 years of this!!!!

Of course the ERG/Leavers in government have explained their multi billion investment in (insert unicorn here) activity that is going to boost the UK economy and stop poverty in the UK.

Or not.

They are happy to say what is so bad about the EU but have not proposed ANY alternative, even a totally crap one.

I would vote no deal and so would every single Leave voter I know (over 150)

"Even if you don't like the EU, how can you want to trade your place at the top table of the biggest trading bloc in the world, with real clout and influence, to go begging to the US and China??"

Do you know anything about trade? You don't seem to. From what you say it must be the case that the US and China dominate world trade and anyone who has a trade deal with them has it on extremely disadvantageous terms. Why do Remainers always see trade in such warlike, winner takes all, terms?

Those of us who are economically literate know that trade in the real world only takes place when it is to the advantage of both parties.

I wouldn't vote. If they ignored us first time round, there is no point voting. A second vote would be illegitimate.

A second vote would be illegitimate. Please explain why.

Don't just make nonsense statements and run.

KennDodd: Nigel Farage didn't bother turning up to the Fisheries Committee meetings because it is a talking shop with no power.

In our glorious, democratic EU, MEPs can neither propose nor amend, legislation. But of course you knew that didn't you? Didn't you?

Why would anyone respect the result of a second vote when the first one was ignored?

Many legislative chambers in democracies can't amend or propose.

But I'm sure you know that don't you?

The U.K. is not the only system of government but I'm sure you know that don't you?

The US Senate can not propose legislation but you know that don't you?

Are you sure about that?

The EU parliament can propose amendments to legislation btw but you know that don't you?

Is she chuff sure of that - she's talking bollocks.

Come on, people spent forty years bitching about the first referendum until they got a second one. I think best of three is a great idea. And this time round let's not exclude the five million Europeans in the UK and Britons in Europe whose lives are the most directly impacted, eh?

If Farage thinks as an MEP, his is a waste of space and has no powers as its a so called talking shop, why is there?
claiming 100s of 1000s in expenses, salary and a pension.... he is a fucking hypocrite of the worst kind .... but you knew that didn't you? didn't you?

Moussemoose - The European Parliament may approve or reject a legislative proposal, or propose amendments to it. The Council is not legally obliged to take account of Parliament’s opinion.

So in effect the EU Parliament has no say in legislation.

In the UK, Parliament proposes and amends legislation. It's kind of it's purpose really. I sort of like the fact that the laws are made by the people I vote for. Well at least the 30% of laws that the UK makes for itself, the other 70% being imposed by the EU.

LaDaronne - please name me some countries which allow foreign nationals to vote in their General Elections or referenda? It really isn't very common to allow foreign nationals voting rights.
The UK does allow it in many cases, e.g Irish and Commonwealth citzens. But then we are somewhat more liberal than other nations.

If you're Irish, for example, and happen to be living overseas then on day 1 of taking up your residence in another country you lose your right to vote in any Irish elections. In the UK however we allow those British citizens living abroad to for up to 15 years to continue to exercise their right to vote.

Moussemoose: "The U.K. is not the only system of government but I'm sure you know that don't you?"

I know that yes but I will take English Common Law over Napoleonic Law every time.

Essentially the difference between them is that with English Common Law a citizen can do anything they like as long as it is not expressly forbidden whereas Napoleonic law allows forbids citizens to anything unless expressly permitted by law.

We've developed, over the centuries, a system of law (usually called the Common Law system) in which the general presumption is that as long as there is no law specifically against the activity you undertake, it is legal. This is in contrast to the so called Roman Law (sometimes called Continental or Napoleonic) ideal that you may only do those things which are specifically sanctioned by a positive law allowing you to do so.

From what you say it must be the case that the US and China dominate world trade and anyone who has a trade deal with them has it on extremely disadvantageous terms.

Aren't they much bigger economies and as such tend to have more leverage? Sure, trade should be win-win but it is much harder to negotiate advantageous terms if one partner is vastly larger than you. It might sound cynical but that's just life.

{the other 70% being imposed by the EU.}
While members of the EU may propose laws (remembering that the UK is a member so will be putting their five pence worth in) each country has the possibility of veto or amendment, passed by it's own government, thus all laws coming from the EU are effectively passed and enforced by their own democratically elected politicians.

Yep economics not politics.

The law is different to the constitution. The law is not our system of government. The law is, well, the law, as in 'the rule of law'.

We are discussing constitutional politics and structure not the law. But you knew that didn't you?

The U.K. parliament is unusual in that it has the power to propose, amend and pass legislation with very few checks and balances. Most constitutional expects regard this as a bad thing.

Famously Lord Hailsham referred to it as an 'elective dictatorship' and he was a Tory.

No legislative chamber being formed would base itself on the U.K. system and the EU did not.

The EU parliament has pros and cons but it is a valid constitutional structure. To argue against it because it is not like the U.K. is small minded and shows a limited knowledge of the issues involved.

Since it is being established that Russian money was used for the Leave campaign, which is I believe illegal, it changes the legitimacy of saying that Leave 'won' the referendum.
'Will of the people' is partly 'will of the Russian people'.

1tisILeClerc - "While members of the EU may propose laws (remembering that the UK is a member so will be putting their five pence worth in) each country has the possibility of veto or amendment, passed by it's own government, thus all laws coming from the EU are effectively passed and enforced by their own democratically elected politicians."

No. The Lisbon Treaty (which was rejected by both France and the Netherlands in referenda but imposed anyway - ok it was the European Constitution - same thing) vastly expanded the areas of EU competence which are governed by QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) and hence removed the veto from large areas of policy. Please look up the Lisbon Treaty on wiki or suchlike.

All EU members are required by law to pass EU laws/directives/other such instruments into their own domestic law. There are penalties and sanctions for not doing so. There is no choice in the matter. Essentially all EU members' legislative bodies rubber-stamp EU diktats, no democracy need be involved.

I'll say it again, "Remainers, you do not know what you were voting for."