Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Brexit
Original poster

Second Referendum

252 replies

MyNameIsArthur · 15/12/2018 09:37

If there was a second referendum, how would you phrase the question on the ballot paper? I thought maybe it should be phrased in the following way in two parts but I'm not sure. What do you think?

A) Do you wish for the UK to Remain in the EU or to leave the EU ?

B) If the majority of the UK votes to leave the EU, do you wish for the UK to leave with:

                    1         Theresa May's deal
                    2          No deal
OP posts:
MutantDisco · 20/12/2018 13:26

jm I got laughed off this thread earlier for suggesting that Vlad wanted Brexit.

People are thick as mince.

missesbiggens · 20/12/2018 13:29

It's pig's shit where I come from, MutantDisco, thick as pig's shit

Raglansleeve · 20/12/2018 13:32

AS soon as Putin announced he was in favour of an independent Scotland I knew a yes vote for independence was a bad idea. He’s all about destabilisation, and the UK leaving the EU plays right into his hands. It’s also been proved that Russia was spreading anti EU pro-leave agenda during the EU referendum.

Of course he’s against a second vote which might not go his way. One bloody good reason for having a second vote Grin

MutantDisco · 20/12/2018 13:33

I chose thick as mince advisedly (it was what David Davis was called by the head of Vote Leave Dominic Cummings) Grin

missesbiggens · 20/12/2018 13:38

But it is natural that Russia want to see the break up of the EU, and one if it's richest members leave, as this does create instability. The EU has deliberately and gradually absorbed all of the Warsaw pact countries into it's union, significantly reducing the 'buffer' zone around Russia and removing some of it's economic prosperity. In effect the EU has attempted to destabilise Russia, and Russia wants to destabilise the EU.

However, Vladimir Putin's opinion doesn't change the basis and history of the leave vote, which I have discussed at length on these threads if anyone cares to actually educate themselves on the context of it.

jm90914 · 20/12/2018 13:52

@missesbiggens

You’ve misunderstood me, possibly - I wasn’t suggesting Putin’s opinion changes the history of the leave vote.

I just wanted to point out that the anti-democratic argument against a second vote is probably the weakest argument for not having one (and someone like Putin, hardly a fine upstanding democratic kind of chap, making the same arguments lends some credence to that).

If people don’t want another vote, I think the polling that suggests no big swing in favour of remain is a much more persuading argument.

jm90914 · 20/12/2018 14:02

@missesbiggens

I will tentatively ask, though, that if Putin wants Brexit, do you think that could possibly point to it not being in the UKs best interest?

Notice I’m carefully saying “possibly” - don’t shoot! Smile

jm90914 · 20/12/2018 14:08

Just to throw another question out there:

Could it be possible that Putin throws his weight behind May, because he think a second referendum could be even further destabilising?

Sorry, things keep popping into my head. I’ll stop hijacking this thread now and shut up.

bellinisurge · 20/12/2018 14:22

Leavers got kwoss when Obama commented for Remain as President of the USA. Wonder if the same applies when Putin lobbies for Brexit.

icannotremember · 20/12/2018 15:06

My MP replied to my letter today:

Dear icannotremember

Thank you for contacting me recently about the campaign for a public vote on Brexit.

I share your concern at the way our withdrawal from the European Union has been handled. After two years of negotiations, I believe the Government's approach has resulted in a bad Brexit deal that does not work for our country and is unlikely to be endorsed by Parliament. This is a result of the Government's failure and refusal to adopt the kind of approach I have been calling for that could have safeguarded jobs and the economy.

As it stands, I intend to vote against the Prime Minister's deal.

Unlike the Prime Minister, however, I do not believe that Parliament's choice is simply between her deal or no deal at all. I think a no-deal Brexit would be catastrophic and the Government does not have the right to plunge our country into chaos because of its own failure to get a good deal.

Therefore, if Parliament rejects the Prime Minister's deal, I believe all options must be kept on the table - including a public vote.

Thank you once again for contacting me on this issue.

Yours sincerely,

Afzal Khan

JamesBondFilm · 20/12/2018 15:11

Afzal Khan will gamble an accidental No deal in the hope of winning a referendum to remain in the EU? Wow!

1tisILeClerc · 20/12/2018 15:16

Not seen much novichok around recently.

DGRossetti · 20/12/2018 15:16

I've commented before that if Putins Russia wanted to destabilize the UK, the best way would be to flip-flop support for Leave/Remain until no one had any idea which way was up anymore.

I'm pretty certain the peaks of BrexitBotMania are connected. There have been a few times (I know some on here have noticed) when "Leavers seem quiet", which suggests the chat'n'post bots have been turned off (they do cost money, after all).

icannotremember · 20/12/2018 15:19

Theresa May will gamble an accidental No Deal in the hope of scaring MPs to support her rubbish WA? Wow!

1tisILeClerc · 20/12/2018 15:28

The WA is a controlled departure from the EU which is what was voted for so I don't see what all the fuss is about.
Of course it is not 'good' for the UK but they didn't come up with a better plan that would not destroy the EU, you can't blame the EU in the slightest as ALL the 'rules' are well publicised, it was and is the UK government and HoC etc who have deliberately assumed the rules don't apply to the UK. If you don't want to get into trouble, read the small print.

ABCagain · 20/12/2018 15:30

Remain or leave with no deal, why complicate it?

1tisILeClerc · 20/12/2018 16:01

WA reduces the number of unnecessary deaths, particularly if the UK bothers to start the post March 29th negotiations properly.

missesbiggens · 20/12/2018 16:16

The deal would be fine if it didn't have the line of legal blackmail in it. Take that clause out and the whole problem goes away as parliament would push it through tomorrow. If the backstop is not likely to come into effect ever, then the legal handcuffs to the EU are not necessary.

All it would take would be for the EU to concede that one single issue, and remainers, leavers, the EU and Parliament could be satisfied that we had a fair, smooth transition out of the EU membership.

DGRossetti · 20/12/2018 16:25

All it would take would be for the EU to concede that one single issue, and remainers, leavers, the EU and Parliament could be satisfied that we had a fair, smooth transition out of the EU membership.

It's probably unhelpful to speculate what the situation might have been like in other eventualities, but the repeated public utterances of UK ministers (let alone bigmouth internet posters) that the UK could simply ignore any assurances given as a result of the A50 process might have prompted the EU to want them written into a legally binding form.

As our own parliament has shown "assurances" mean fuck all. And anyone who has snuck a "best endeavours" into a contract over an objective criteria will know the situation.

Maybe it's bit upsetting to suddenly realise that the world doesn't trust UK assurances, but it's simply pigeons coming home to roost.

I would point to Diego Garcia as an example, but I suspect a lot of Brexiteers will just ask what's he got to do with it ?

1tisILeClerc · 20/12/2018 16:37

{The deal would be fine if it didn't have the line of legal blackmail in it. }
The UK government have 'form' for being lying 'wotsits' over the centuries so it is only natural to get the security of NI sewn up as much as possible.
Government ministers have already said recently that they would happily rip up any agreements post March 2019.
The fact that the Belfast Agreement is 'disposable' in some ministers eyes is not good.

DGRossetti · 20/12/2018 16:48

Government ministers have already said recently that they would happily rip up any agreements post March 2019.

But naturally, expect the rest of the world to uphold their end of the bargain.

I think the rest of the world has been incredibly mature and grown up (plus they have their own problems) but it's hard to deny that for some people, this moment - of having the UK on the back foot and retreating heavily - has been a dream; maybe for centuries. And having achieved it by politics, rather than warfare is an extra bonus.

missesbiggens · 20/12/2018 17:41

By jove, I think I've found the fifth column in this little sphere of Mumsnet. The absolute glee in these words!

"I think the rest of the world has been incredibly mature and grown up (plus they have their own problems) but it's hard to deny that for some people, this moment - of having the UK on the back foot and retreating heavily - has been a dream; maybe for centuries. And having achieved it by politics, rather than warfare is an extra bonus."

DGRossetti · 20/12/2018 18:48

By jove, I think I've found the fifth column in this little sphere of Mumsnet

Honoured. My blushes. Not quite sure if I qualify for "fifth columnist" though, being (as I am increasingly reminded of) only half-British.

Maybe five halves columnist Hmm ?

jasjas1973 · 20/12/2018 19:37

If the backstop is not likely to come into effect ever, then the legal handcuffs to the EU are not necessary

Yes buts its not so unlikely is it?
The idea of the UK/EU agreeing a trading relationship which also creates a frictionless invisible border in NI, requires a CU and a SM and that is by no means a certainty at all.

So, its probable that UK will be in the backstop for some considerable time, based how long its taken to come up with an WA no one wants :)
Remember the BS also ties the EU in too, they need our permission to leave it.

missesbiggens · 20/12/2018 22:56

Exactly JasJas. Exactly. That's why no MP on either side wants to sign it. If UK sign it, EU control the trade negotiations. If the UK wont sign, the UK has leverage. If the sticking point is removed, we move to a trust based 'best endeavours' scenario but on BOTH sides, with neither held hostage. The backstop is designed to prevent the UK leaving the EU without agreeing to be shafted in the 'free trade deal'.