Anyone else feel uncomfortable with the idea of a second referendum, given the first?

[MuseumofInnocence]

Apologies, as I'm sure this has been done elsewhere.

I've been thinking a lot about the role of parliamentary sovereignty and how it differs from direct democracy. I was listening to Michael Heseltine again who gave a great speech at the March yesterday. He talks a lot about Parliament and how it is the foundations of our freedom, MPs do a great job, commit great service and so on. And then he concludes that "we the people, must be given the final say". I am a remainer and therefore sympathetic to this view, but given how the first went, and the argument for representative democracy, am I being a bit intellectually dishonest if I go down this road? If MPs were able to fulfil their duty, they would see that Brexit was not in the interests of the UK, and revoke Article 50?

[HoustonBess]

Leavers are going to be pissed off whatever happens, because the things they were promised are impossible to deliver.

We should do whatever brings this shitshow to an end as soon as possible. Revoke or PV, this time with actual facts rather than nationalistic blether.

[Tolleshunt]

I totally agree with Bluntness about a second referendum. Too many do not understand enough about the options to be able to make a meaningful choice. Couple that with a certain bloody-mindedness within the British psyche, amongst certain elements at least, and there will be a lot of doubling-down regardless of the consequences. The economics are too complex for most to calculate, and I have no faith in the integrity of the campaigns.

If we do go ahead we need, as a bare minimum, an independent body to fact-check all claims made by both sides, and a hefty communications budget to ensure the facts are as well-publicised as the lies and spin were last time.

[1tisILeClerc]

{If we do go ahead we need, as a bare minimum, an independent body to fact-check all claims made by both sides, and a hefty communications budget to ensure the facts are as well-publicised as the lies and spin were last time.}

With the obvious problem that those who were behind the telling of lies last time are the ones who would be organising a new referendum.

[1tisILeClerc]

The MSM are not requiring those who are advocating leave to actually substantiate their wild claims. They are allowing things that have been shown to be lies to continue being said.

[Afineexample]

I didn't agree with it in the first place.

Noway style deal is not a good idea, either- all of the same rules and no voice in any of it.

[Afineexample]

With the obvious problem that those who were behind the telling of lies last time are the ones who would be organising a new referendum.

I have a feeling that some of them secretly wanted to remain, but went for the popular side to further their careers or top up their accounts. They never expected leave to get more votes.
They can't change that narrative now. But I bet some ticked remain at the ballot box.

[MuseumofInnocence]

Crikey, I posted this yesterday, and didn't come back for a while. This discussion has really moved

[BlingLoving]

If we do go ahead we need, as a bare minimum, an independent body to fact-check all claims made by both sides, and a hefty communications budget to ensure the facts are as well-publicised as the lies and spin were last time

But we had all that last time. No one believed the various independent bodies who sprung up and tried to point out the flaws in the Leaver argument. Ditto, the communications budget was used to create believable lies that convinced an entire swathe of the population. The Cambridge Analytica stuff was apparently aimed at 35-45 year olds living outside of London as they were seen as the swing vote.... As I fall into that category, I can tell you I saw some of it. More importantly, I know a number of friends who saw it and BOUGHT INTO IT, much to my shock. The same people, obviously, who repost conspiracy theories and crazy warnings about gang killings in guildford....

[BlingLoving]

I think a second referendum is the only way. Democracy demands it in that things have changed since the vote. At the time, most people voting leave genuinely believed Gove and the gang that it would be "easy". Many of them also believe all the rubbish about the NHS and sovereignty etc. If nothing else, many have realised that this is just not the case. I have spoken to leave voters who say they still prefer the idea of leave, but are no longer sure that the effort is worth it as while they'd like to be out, they have come to see the downsides. Kind of like I'd like to not work, but realise I don't really have a choice if I want to live in house and feed my family.

So a decent democratic process should absolutely give the population a chance to actually make a new, informed decision based on where we are today. As PP have highlighted, the biggest challenge becomes figuring out what question to ask this time.

And for everyone who says they're not going to vote, well, fine. But then please don't complain about the outcome. And if you think you've already voted so shouldn't have to do so again, grow up. Our civic duty i a bit more complicated than only getting involved once every 5 years. We expect our politicians to immerse themselves in these issues and reflect our views, but if we're not willing to provide information on what we think, more often than once every 5 years (or more if you're complaining that this referendum was already the SECOND one on the EU), then frankly, you don't deserve a say. I'm sure my DC would like a similar attitude to chores - they do them once and never have to do them again because, "but mum, we did the chores last week. We shouldn't have to do them again for 5 years".

[YouBumder]

I don’t necessarily think that there should be another ref but if there was I think the options should be remain or leave on May’s deal. No deal is going to be too damaging and the public shouldn’t get a say on it.

[DioneTheDiabolist]

A 2nd, legally binding Brexit referendum would be a very different beast to the embarrassment that was the last advisory Brexit referendum.

[1tisILeClerc]

{I don’t necessarily think that there should be another ref but if there was I think the options should be remain or leave on May’s deal. No deal is going to be too damaging and the public shouldn’t get a say on it.}

No deal is currently what WILL happen on 12 April* unless the UK declares what it does want.

• In EU law. Changed from 29 March.

[MockerstheFeManist]

What's the Question?

How many options?

What's the electorate? UK citizens in the EU? EU ctizens in the UK? 16 y/o's? Dependent Territories additional to Gibraltar dependent on UK/EU frictionless trade: Jersey, Guernsey, Montserrat, Anguilla etc.

[PizzaCafe2016]

No deal is going to be too damaging and the public shouldn’t get a say on it

How does that represent democracy? Tailoring the question to suit remain would never be allowed.

[Mistigri]

No deal would involve the U.K. unilaterally breaching an international treaty. I think there is a good argument that it shouldn't be on ballot papers.

[1tisILeClerc]

The biggest problem is that those who voted leave and might do again have not taken on board the fact that the things the 'Leave' parties 'promised' are almost guaranteed NOT to happen.
Once you strip out the nonsense about 'sovereignty', the ability to do great trade deals globally that would actually translate into stuff the UK wants or can make, there is not a lot left.
Trade deals with the USA, well cold water has been poured on this by the Americans. Great trade deals with Australia NZ etc, most have been met with either a sharp intake of breath or a simple 'not very likely'.
If you were to vote leave again, you would have to examine what can happen, not what you would like to happen, as there is a significant difference.

[1tisILeClerc]

juzme
That is a complete load of ranty bollocks.

{ First the world will be carved up into regions (eg the European Union, African Union}
It already is, get over it!
I would say you need to get out more, but on the other hand with your intolerant ranting it is better you stay at home and let others that want to be free get on with enjoying life.

[PizzaCafe2016]

No deal would involve the U.K. unilaterally breaching an international treaty

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

[Tolleshunt]

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

There aren't that many. If those that profess to, it is a combination of naked self-interest, and being so in thrall to an ideology that they are deaf and blind to the unhappy results of it - for others- should it be implemented.

[Peregrina]

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

Some of them probably think we still have an Empire and can throw our weight around and no one can stop us, and others, despite their high profile are either very dim, or in the case of Boris Johnson, act as though they are dim, and some will be too stupid to realise that the GFA is an international treaty.

[Jason118]

@PizzaCafe2016
Because either they don't understand International Law or the think that we the UK have a special status so we can ignore them.

[Mistigri]

If that’s correct why are there so many high profile MPs wanting no deal?

• because some of them actively opposed the international treaty in question
• because some of them have other priorities
• because some of them Don't Know Shit.

[Mistigri]

High profile MPS ...

... include someone who didn't realise the importance of Dover to U.K. trade, and someone who spunked £33 million of your cash giving a ferry contract to a firm with no ferries.

Some of these people are just really really incompetent.

[YouBumder]

How does that represent democracy? Tailoring the question to suit remain would never be allowed.

It’s not to suit remain. It’s on the basis that the deal is the only way we can leave. You don’t get to fuck the entire country over in the name of “democracy”.