Who thinks there should be another referendum

[paprickapaull]

Who thinks there should be another referendum?
My mum says there shouldn't but my husband says there should be I'm not very sure.

What do u think?

@MissedTheBoatAgain , you have by your own words lived outside the UK and E.U. for 30 years. What do you know?

Not a lot bless him. Sure he only found out that MEPs were elected the other day.😂

A vote cast by a person with an IQ of 10 carries the same weight as a vote cast by someone who has an IQ of 200.

It is called democracy

And that's precisely why we are supposed to be a representative democracy.

Because referendums in which the general public are asked to make a very complex decision affecting the country's future for the next generation (and in which an expert has the same say as someone with an IQ of 10), are not a good idea.

So why has the result of the referendum not been cancelled?

This is the shameful hilarious part.

If the referendum had been binding it would have been declared void for illegality. But because it was only advisory, they can't do anything because it is up to parliament to decide what to do about the result. And parliament appears to be largely ignoring the illegality issue.

Because it was an advisory referendum

Would you have said that if vote was to remain?

If advisory why did the UK Government trigger Article 50 and spend 2 years trying to make a deal if they could ignore? Both Conservative and Labour in the 2017 election said they would honour the result of the referendum.

Why did Scotland not go ahead with Independence in 2014 if referendum was only advisory and the 55% who voted to remain in UK could have been ignored?

Few bad losers on here who are preaching:

Votes are only valid if the overall result is what I want

Yep. I would say it was an advisory referendum if Remain had won. What with it being a fact.

Scotland's referendum on independence wasn't advisory. Didn't you know that either?

asked to make a very complex decision

Question on ballot paper was a simple:

Leave

or

Remain

If the vote had been Remain, it would/should have been declared void due to law breaking.
We would then have gone back to the status quo and Parliament then decides on when or if to have another vote.

The West needs to wake up to the threats posed by online media and illegal funding.

Yes, asked a question in an advisory referendum. Not a proper referendum. There's a difference.

Would you have said that if vote was to remain?

Yes, because I am a lawyer, and as a matter of law, it was an advisory referendum. It's not a matter of opinion.

If advisory why did the UK Government trigger Article 50 and spend 2 years trying to make a deal if they could ignore? Both Conservative and Labour in the 2017 election said they would honour the result of the referendum.

Because the Tory party is full of swivel eyed loons who want Brexit at any cost and Theresa May wouldn't have lasted five minutes?

As for the 2017 referendum, well Jeremy Corbyn is at heart a Brexiter leading a broadly pro remain party, which gives rise to its own problems (not least because the 48% were effectively disenfranchised as they had no real option to vote for a pro remain party). But it's worth pointing out that the 2017 election was nearly two years ago. At that point there were probably still quite a lot of reasonable people in parliament who thought it would be possible to get an OK deal and strike a compromise people could live with.

Why did Scotland not go ahead with Independence in 2014 if referendum was only advisory and the 55% who voted to remain in UK could have been ignored?

You're drawing a false equivalence here between a changing the status quo and keeping it. Changing the status quo is necessarily more difficult and complex than keeping it.

Scottish voters instructed their government to "do nothing", i.e. maintain the status quo. Seceding from the UK would have been difficult and complex enough even with the consent of the Scottish voters. (And if the vote had gone their way they may have run into just as many difficulties trying to actually implement it as we have with Brexit, and changed their minds.)

Trying to do it without their consent would have been unthinkable (not to mention illegal). And of course, when you vote to maintain the status quo you always have the option of revisiting that decision again in the future, because you have not made any irreversible changes.

It's not quite the same as parliament deciding, in 2016, 2017, 2018 or 2019, that leaving the EU wasn't/isn't actually possible without causing an unacceptable degree of harm to the country, and that therefore they were/are not going to implement the result of the referendum.

No. I don't think another referendum would be helpful at this point. If a leave option was still presented, I think we would have another leave vote returned. If a leave vote were left off, then I think it would be the catalyst for civil unrest.

I think the best option now is to get an agreement that is equally disliked by everyone

Scottish voters instructed their government

Good that someone recognizes that a majority vote in a referendum is an instruction to their government.

Do get tired of people who have made their lives elsewhere, through choice, or who have a nice safe dual nationality escape route, pontificating on the benefits of leaving from their insulated ivory towers.

This works both ways though. I'm tired of hearing Brits who've been living and working full time in Spain or France for years with no intention of returning, pontificating on the benefits of staying in the EU as they see it from where they live - which is not in Great Britain. Because it suits them that we should stay in and it lets them keep all their options open.

They have no idea of the issues British people LIVING IN BRITAIN have faced over the last 15 years that have led to a majority Leave vote, because they haven't flipping well been here.

Do they seriously expect people living in the UK to take them into consideration when voting?

Good that someone recognizes that a majority vote in a referendum is an instruction to their government.

But not one which must be followed at any cost.

If the instruction is to "do nothing" then it is hard to see a justification for not following that instruction, since "do nothing" means "do nothing".

If the instruction is to "do something" and then it turns out that the "something" is impossible or comes at too high a cost, then that is a good justification for not following the instruction.

@Ellenborough makes a good point.
@MissedTheBoatAgain , you still haven't understood the difference between referenda types, have you.

Unless there is a clear indication that the result of a second referendum would be a strong remain, it would be pointless. My feeling is that the Leave side have consolidated their position over the past two years so the result wouldn't be materially different. Just a waste of more time and money and we'd be even more divided as a result.
I'm waiting for that white knuckle moment when the WA is off the table and extension isn't agreed because we've still not got a clear way forward, and parliament have to vote either to Revoke or allow no deal to happen. That'll be interesting.

I don't think there should be another referendum, especially not of the Stay/Go variety. It is much to complex an issue for the voters to be reduced to this.

I would prefer for the UK Government to do their job and Revoke.

They have no idea of the issues British people LIVING IN BRITAIN have faced over the last 15 years that have led to a majority Leave vote, because they haven't flipping well been here.

I am still waiting for someone to explain what issues "British people living in Britain" are living with that have been caused by our membership of the EU and could not have been resolved or mitigated by our own government.

Your choice of words "British people living in Britain" is ironic too, since that necessarily excludes British people living in Northern Ireland, who apparently don't count for much in the eyes of "British people living in Britain".

Do they seriously expect people living in the UK to take them into consideration when voting?

Not really but the government should. Treating people as bargaining chips is pretty shabby really.

People exercised the treaty rights that they were entitled to exercise. Many British people have lived in the EU for many years and I think some leave voters see them as another species of moneyed château-dwellers as opposed to people with jobs and mortgages and spouses and children, who have been living in limbo for the last three years. People who don't know whether they will be allowed to continue to go to work in three weeks' time, or whether it will be legal for them to continue to use their UK driving licences to drive there.

Many of these people didn't even get a vote on an issue that would affect their daily lives enormously.

In fact I have one friend who calls herself a Scot as her parents were Scots but she's never lived or worked in the UK in her life. She was born an expat brat on another continent altogether and has spent the last 20 years in France, where she moved on a whim with her husband. She is furious that as a British person she will no longer have an automatic right to live and work in France while retaining British citizenship and will have to jump through some administrative hoops in order to keep her life as it is. She thinks this is all terribly unfair, we've made a grave error and are clearly all stupid.

All while having zero understanding of the issues that have led to it.

Yes sorry, should have said UK.

If the instruction is to "do something" and then it turns out that the "something" is impossible or comes at too high a cost, then that is a good justification for not following

Well UK leaving the EU is not impossible. So that's one to tick off.

Too high a cost is subjective. Is it measured purely in money or is it measured in beliefs or in perceived freedom?

Some people become suicide bombers and pay what many would consider to be the ultimate price in pursuit of their beliefs.

No it's not impossible. Via the WA.

I think comparing Brexit to being a suicide bomber is a pretty good analogy actually, but probably not the one you intended to make.

No it's not impossible. Via the WA.

Yes. A timely reminder that if all the Tories and DUP voted in favour of the withdrawal agreement, Brexit would be a done deal by now.

If Brexit gets cancelled, it will be their fault.

So why do they keep voting against it?

I didn't think we could have another one.
I still wouldn't vote if there was one.