Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
I think we can take that as a tacit acceptance by you that any such vote is unlikely to deliver what you personally want.
- Status
I think we can take that as a tacit acceptance by you that any such vote is unlikely to deliver what you personally want.
You're wrong in that thought.
Information Analyst
Penultimate Amazing
Really? You're clearly terrified at the thought that another vote may go the other way.
Really? If Labour won an election and the conservatives demanded a do-over because it had been kinda close, would you think Labour was scared if they told them to take a hike? Or would it just be a case of “elections have consequences “?
The key difference is that while general elections are binding, the referendum was non-binding.
That said, there is precedent for a vaguely similar process. In 1974 the Labour Party "lost" the first general election but the Conservatives lacked an overall majority and so the Labour Party got a "do over". Of course general elections in the UK aren't A or B referendums and as a consequence the winning party (the one with the most seats) may be unable to form a government, so that's where the similarity.
IMO there are two sorts of people who are still firmly in favour of Brexit.
Those for whom the ability to keep Poles at bay, "bendy bananas" and the ability to sell potatoes by the pound is worth any economic or diplomatic price and those people are absolutely confident that everything will turn out fine despite the dire warnings because we're British and the world will bend to our will.
Personally I doubt either of those groups fear a second referendum because they are totally confident that the result will at worst be the same and more likely there will be a much bigger majority in favour of Leave.
You're wrong again. I'm not terrified at all. You are making a habit of being totally wrong whenever you attempt to guess my opinion.
Although I wouldn't be terrified, I would be disgusted if another referendum were held, regardless of the result. When a government has pledged to ask the electorate what they want and promised to implement that decision whichever way it goes then it would be a betrayal of democracy to then renege on that promise.
Although I would be disgusted, I wouldn't be particularly surprised. As I already posted, a similar situation has already happened in Ireland, Italy, and Greece. All three of those countries held a referendum on a matter concerning the EU and then ignored the result when the people voted the opposite way to what the EU wanted and expected.
Last edited:
On the continuing nonsense in this thread that the referendum was only 'advisory':
Under current British law, an 'advisory' referendum is the only type that is allowed, but we also should consider whether or not the Brexit referendum was politically binding.
On 9 June 2016 the then Foreign Secretary said:
and the official government leaflet, sent to every household in the country said:
Under current British law, an 'advisory' referendum is the only type that is allowed, but we also should consider whether or not the Brexit referendum was politically binding.
On 9 June 2016 the then Foreign Secretary said:
and the official government leaflet, sent to every household in the country said:
Lothian
should be banned
Except no one knows what the electorate wants. The leave folk all wanted different things which is why you are unable to explain what people voted for on specific issues. Where you pretend there was unity we can easily find leaders on the leave side who promised the opposite.
The leave option on the actual ballot paper allows countless variations yet you reject some while presumably accepting others.
The fact is there will be no democracy because the public have not voted to say whether they want, like Boris, to stay within the single market or within Europol or within the Customs Union.
Instead the government have decided on an advisory vote that they can decide what the public want. In my view both sides should oppose this and the public should get a say before the Government decides and tries to tell us that we made that choice.
Lothian
should be banned
Good, we agree that under UK law the Government has no legal obligation to follow the vote.
Lothian
should be banned
On 11 May 2016 the current Foreign Secretary said: after brexit an extra £350m a week will go to the NHS.
Either Foreign secretaries are infallible or they can be wrong. Which is it?
From the impression I got from speaking to some of them - unscientific and anecdotal I admit - the leave minority here in Glasgow thought that they were voting for the EU somehow to vanish from sight all at once. I suppose that means, more rationally, that the UK would simply walk away from it without formalities of any kind.
Members of ethnic minorities, whether from EU nationalities or not, reported Brexiteers telling them that they must leave the country "because that's what the British people voted for."
As best I can make out, these simplicities were not uncommon features of Brexiteers' thinking; but as Brexit was very much a minority opinion in Glasgow (33% voted Leave), the people who did vote that way might be more extreme than the average UK voter, so my anecdotal account may not reflect what was happening in England.
Members of ethnic minorities, whether from EU nationalities or not, reported Brexiteers telling them that they must leave the country "because that's what the British people voted for."
As best I can make out, these simplicities were not uncommon features of Brexiteers' thinking; but as Brexit was very much a minority opinion in Glasgow (33% voted Leave), the people who did vote that way might be more extreme than the average UK voter, so my anecdotal account may not reflect what was happening in England.
Last edited:
I think it's a fair assumption that the majority didn't vote for a watered down half-remain result that everyone agrees will be worse than what we had before.
The choice at the referendum was NOT:
Remain: keep things as they are.
Leave: keep obeying all EU rules, keep paying into the EU, keep free movement, but lose all political representation in the EU.
If that had been the choice, then everyone, myself included, would have voted Remain. It's nonsense to argue that the outcome you're advocating was what ANY of the electorate wanted.
The truth is that remainers want that outcome now, because it's (for them) the second best option to actually leaving properly. To argue that any of the majority of voters that voted leave wanted such an outcome is a lie.
Lothian said:
He never said that. This is another thing that remainers keep repeating in the hope that if they say it often enough it will become true. What was said, and written on a bus, was that we pay £350 million a week to the EU, Let's fund our NHS instead. No one ever said that the whole amount would go to the NHS.
Remain supporters are trying to get us to continue to pay the full amount to the EU. If they succeed then none of that money will be available for the NHS. If we do manage to eventually leave, and stop paying the EU, then you can be certain that some of the money saved will be diverted to the NHS.
You missed the main point of my post which was that the government committed to a political obligation to implement whatever the people voted for. It was written into the leaflet sent by the government to every household in the country.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Yep the vote was clearly
Remain have not changes
Leave, a no deal exit with closed boarders to all other nations and violating the GFA. That is what the people decided they wanted. So all this negotiating is really pointless as we already know what people want, and that is a no deal exit. It is what they voted for.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Yes he wrote it on his bus, that clearly isn't a message he intended anyone to see. It was just in his advertising campaign not something he said so it can be ignored. You can't trust anything these people write down after all.
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
So all they need to do is get the EU to agree to the policies set out on the leaflet. It must clearly have spelled out all these boarder issues, so why is the government having problems articulating their position when it was clearly written in the leaflet?
Boris admitted in January this year that the £350 million a week figure was wrong.
It was too low. He said that UK’s gross EU contribution was already up to £362m per week for 2017-18 and would rise annually to £410m, £431m, and then to £438m by 2020-21 – “theoretically the last year of the transition period”.
It was too low. He said that UK’s gross EU contribution was already up to £362m per week for 2017-18 and would rise annually to £410m, £431m, and then to £438m by 2020-21 – “theoretically the last year of the transition period”.
- Status