For anyone against having a second referendum...

[Elle087]

As we get closer to March 29th we are not only running out of time but running out of options.

Many leave voters will have you believe that all 17.4 million of them voted with a no deal in mind so having another referendum would be undemocratic.

But i ask anyone with this viewpoint to come on here and tell me how this can possibly be true when some of the most prominent leave campaigners were on record before the vote saying that no one was talking about leaving the single market and we could be like Norway?
How many of the 17.4 million people voted thinking this would be true?

With a no deal brexit this will be confirmed as complete lies so the people must be consulted again before we let this happen.

I'm 99% certain that if the only choices were remain or no deal then remain would win by quite a margin, maybe 60/40.

You said you understood the implications. So you understood that business wold be advised to leave the UK, that medicine stock piles would be needed, that troops would be put on standby to be deployed on the streets?

Plans for leaving the EU and transition from it are not the end result. Whatever preparations and safeguards need to be put in place should be put in place, and should have been planned for before the referendum itself. Those things are not the implications of leaving the EU are they?

They are plans for a no deal which was always a possible implication of leave vote and yes of course it's a direct result of leaving the EU be would've be doing any of it if we were remaining in!!!

Well, then, to answer your question better now that I understand it, yes I did understand that there would be transitory effects of leaving the EU and no, I did not think it would resemble the plot of 28 days later because I thought that any serious and responsible government would already have planned transition before calling the vote in the first place!

But that is not a reason to a)not have the first referendum which people in the UK have been crying out to vote in for decades and b) to have a second one.

So if you didn't anticipate this shambles then in fact you didn't fully understand the implications and therefore there is a justification for a new vote now that you do.

You could vote leave again knowing this time that the Government are incompetent and incapable of delivering in a sensible fashion, if that's your choice.

Well, no, you are either twisting what I am saying to suit your argument or not fully comprehending what I am saying. This is not justification for a second referendum!

This is not justification for a second referendum!

If confirmed lies and people not fully understanding the FULL implications of what they were voting for isn't justification for a second referendum, in your opinion what would be?

So you didn't realise it would be a shit show of these proportions but you still fully understood all the implications and finding out it is in fact an epic shit show is not justification for asking the question again. Got ya

I think it was pretty clear there was no plan behind the leave vote. I cannot believe this is still going ahead. Its not just about the people who voted leave. This is about ruining a country for future generations.

So you think we're all going to want to vote again to stay in the EU because the only deal the EU will agree to is one that prevents us ever leaving without their permission? This is why we find ourselves in a no deal situation, and yet the problem here is leave voters and the government? The actual process of leaving is not the end result, and the process was unknowable, since we can't speak for the other side of the negotiating table. It's not rocket science. Another referendum doesn't change anything at all; the song remains the same.

a)not have the first referendum which people in the UK have been crying out to vote in for decades

I honestly don't think many people have been crying out at all, and certainly not for decades. A significant number of people didn't really know what the EU is or what it does so I doubt if they wanted to vote about something they know nothing off. The Rees-Moggs of the world yes, because they stand to make a pile of money out of the UK crashing out.

It is debatable whether leaving with no deal is legally an option.
What a stupid state of affairs when we're in this situation and people are claiming they voted for it knowingly. FFS. How the Leavers' rhetoric has changed.

Yes you are right, the process was unknowable.
So why was it OK to vote with a blindfold on but not OK to vote now we know exactly what we are voting on?

The remain campaign was FOS aswell. No further political integration? They didn't have a mandate for political integration in the first place. That's why leave won. Anna Soubry is a shining example of how parliament and MPs just don't listen to the people they represent. When this happens, you get the referendum shock result.

BeardedMum has hit the nail on the head there. This is absolutely not about satisfying Leavers' weird concept of "honour". The future of our whole country is at stake and we should NOT be held to ransom by extremists.

They didn't have a mandate for political integration in the first place.
More Leavers' rhetoric.

Cameron had an opt out from further political integration. However, Cameron did also want his cake and eat it, in that he also wanted to be at the 'top table'.

A mandate from parliament, maybe. But from the public? So why was the referendum on the Lisbon treaty denied? And the treaty signed in secret. A treaty which removed significant vet rights from the UK and therefore passed even more sovereignty from parliament to an unelected old boy's club?

*veto rights

I am sick and tired of the Leaver's rhetoric about no mandate for joining, or the changes being made to the EEEC/EU. I forget how many General Elections there have been since we first went in, but anyone who felt strongly has had ample opportunity to express their opinions. If they chose not to vote that's their problem. It's a bit like the number of times I have asked Leavers how they vote in the EU elections. To date, I haven't had a single response saying that they voted at all. I can't be arsed don't vote on principle being the most common answer.

As for the Referendum - if the result had gone the other way, Leave's poster boy Farage said quite plainly that it was unfinished business.

You might be sick and tired of it Peregrina, but that attitude is why we are where we are.

A significant part of Labour's 2005 general election manifesto was about a vote on the 'European constitution', later rewritten and renamed as the Lisbon treaty. The tories promised (and delivered) a referendum on EU membership.

People are expressing, and have expressed, their opinions. And the referendum was the culmination of that.

A mandate from parliament, maybe. But from the public?

We are not governed by plebiscite. We are a parliamentary democracy.

You might be sick and tired of it Peregrina, but that attitude is why we are where we are.

No. Your attitude and your vote are why we are where we are because you voted for something nebulous, something with no plan.

Well unfortunately when parliament gives two fingers to it's electorate you get this kind of result. Parliamentary democracy is wonderful as long as it is in general alignment with people it is supposed to represent.

Well unfortunately when parliament gives two fingers to it's electorate you get this kind of result.

None of which will be solved by leaving the EU, so that is a very, very illogical argument. Parliament will continue to give two fingers to its citizens, particularly the poor, disabled and marginalised. Then what?