Non - Brexit

blandford_cherry said:
View attachment 1680

I think she hit the nail on the head last night. The MPs are the problem
Click to expand...

But we have a representative democracy, what we have is a battle between the sovereignty of the Parliament and the sovereignty of the People and what's more it wasn't all the people, 13 million people didn't vote.

It is never going to change until we have a sensible form of proportional representation whereby most of the people are represented and know their vote is valid and valuable. Had this been the case in 2016 in all probability there would have been no referendum.

The Midlands along with the North East could have voted for UKIP or for a party that understood their frustration and thus any party trying to form the government of the day would have had to take notice. The Lib Dems would have been proportionally represented and God help us, perhaps ever the BNP may have had a seat. It would then have been government by negotiation not by confrontation. But we just don't understand that form of government, except during World Wars.

Right now we are held to ransom by a minority government voted into power by 42% of the population, held in power by a party with 10 seats elected by only 292,316 people from an area of the united kingdom that voted to stay. You couldn't make it up.
 
blandford_cherry said:
It’s a good question I voted off of the back of the information available at the time, rightly or wrongly. I’m more frustrated at the fact of we’ve held one referendum we don’t need to have another one until we get the result other people want, it would ruin (even further) politics for years to come
Click to expand...
Appreciate the reply. When you mention you voted based on the 'info available at the time' do you mean the leaflets and speeches? I only ask because if it was based on 'info' the leave politicians stated (better deal than what we have, SM and CU membership, no money to them, easiest deal in history, leave but still have a say in the laws etc) I would not be complaining as a remain voter if those promises had come true. I would be surprised they had pulled it off, but my god i would not be trying to change it with another vote because I had not won. We would have all won big time ! I would be over the moon.

I hear your frustration about a second vote, but you voted honestly and in line with the info you were given at the time. You made a reasoned decision, and i would be surprised if it was for this. Having a second vote or revoking Article 50 would only upset people who wanted this current situation. I don't think many of the 17.4 mill wanted this or even contemplated our predicament now because it was never mentioned, or if it was it was denounced as fear mongering. Another vote would screw a few hedge funds maybe, and a few politicians ego's, but while we would not all win, we would not all lose.
 
dutchcherry said:
Appreciate the reply. When you mention you voted based on the 'info available at the time' do you mean the leaflets and speeches? I only ask because if it was based on 'info' the leave politicians stated (better deal than what we have, SM and CU membership, no money to them, easiest deal in history, leave but still have a say in the laws etc) I would not be complaining as a remain voter if those promises had come true. I would be surprised they had pulled it off, but my god i would not be trying to change it with another vote because I had not won. We would have all won big time ! I would be over the moon.

I hear your frustration about a second vote, but you voted honestly and in line with the info you were given at the time. You made a reasoned decision, and i would be surprised if it was for this. Having a second vote or revoking Article 50 would only upset people who wanted this current situation. I don't think many of the 17.4 mill wanted this or even contemplated our predicament now because it was never mentioned, or if it was it was denounced as fear mongering. Another vote would screw a few hedge funds maybe, and a few politicians ego's, but while we would not all win, we would not all lose.
Click to expand...

Yeah the speeches, immigration, nhs, trade etc. On the back of it now not all information was correct and I think Everyone assumed once article 50 went in it would be simple.

There can’t be a 2nd referendum on it. It would be ridiculous
 
dutchcherry said:
Appreciate the reply. When you mention you voted based on the 'info available at the time' do you mean the leaflets and speeches? I only ask because if it was based on 'info' the leave politicians stated (better deal than what we have, SM and CU membership, no money to them, easiest deal in history, leave but still have a say in the laws etc) I would not be complaining as a remain voter if those promises had come true. I would be surprised they had pulled it off, but my god i would not be trying to change it with another vote because I had not won. We would have all won big time ! I would be over the moon.

I hear your frustration about a second vote, but you voted honestly and in line with the info you were given at the time. You made a reasoned decision, and i would be surprised if it was for this. Having a second vote or revoking Article 50 would only upset people who wanted this current situation. I don't think many of the 17.4 mill wanted this or even contemplated our predicament now because it was never mentioned, or if it was it was denounced as fear mongering. Another vote would screw a few hedge funds maybe, and a few politicians ego's, but while we would not all win, we would not all lose.
Click to expand...

There are so many problems with a second vote though, which I rarely see it's (almost all Remain wishing) advocates talk about. And they haven't changed in the last year or two, so I'm just repeating things really.

Now I appreciate that I am utterly biased, as a soft Brexit is exactly my preferred outcome. So please keep that in mind!

Mostly the problem is: What happens if leave wins again?

Will Remain accept the result for starters?
Whenever I ask that question, people mostly say they would accept it. Some though are honest enough to admit they would forever campaign strongly against leaving the EU because it's the conviction they hold. And I can respect more that answer, and it's honesty. Rather than the many people who I suspect of being disingenuous when saying they simply want "more democracy".

But putting that aside and looking at the constitutional element of the problem: What would another leave result actually mean?
May's deal? No deal? Start talks again from scratch? Hold another General Election to put together a different set of MPs?
It really leaves us no better off really in terms of clarity and mandate.

If Remain wins, but by god forbid an even smaller margin than Leave won last time? Does Leave win on aggregate? Or does it give Remain sufficient mandate to cancel all things Brexit and ignore it all happened?

The only outcome of another referendum that provides clarity for anyone is a massive Remain win. Which I appreciate a lot of people want. But that's by no means certain. Polling often suggests that most people haven't changed their minds, and those who voted leave will still vote leave, and visa versa. So I'm skeptical that this one outcome of any clarity will occur. Whichever way it would go, I think it would be tight. Such is the division we see.

I think all it'll do is just sow even more discontent and hatred among our population. I think we would all need to think through these questions very carefully before we plunged the country into another vote.

Thus is only way forward from this mess that I can see is a soft Brexit, that implements the last referendum, whilst respecting the closeness of the vote, and provides a platform that can be refined over time. If a party wants to stand at General Elections with a manifesto for another referendum, and they gain power on that mandate, then by all means we have to honour that come wat may.
 
northstandmark said:
There are so many problems with a second vote though, which I rarely see it's (almost all Remain wishing) advocates talk about. And they haven't changed in the last year or two, so I'm just repeating things really.

Now I appreciate that I am utterly biased, as a soft Brexit is exactly my preferred outcome. So please keep that in mind!

Mostly the problem is: What happens if leave wins again?

Will Remain accept the result for starters?
Whenever I ask that question, people mostly say they would accept it. Some though are honest enough to admit they would forever campaign strongly against leaving the EU because it's the conviction they hold. And I can respect more that answer and it's honesty, rather than the many people who I suspect of being disingenuous when saying they simply want "more democracy".

But putting that aside and looking at the constitutional element of the problem: What would another leave result actually mean?
May's deal? No deal? Start talks again from scratch? Hold another General Election?
It really leaves us no better off really in terms of clarity and mandate.

If Remain wins, but by god forbid an even smaller margin than Leave won last time? Does Leave win on aggregate? Or does it give Remain sufficient mandate to cancel all things Brexit and ignore it all happened?

The only outcome of another referendum that provides clarity for anyone is a massive Remain win. Which I appreciate a lot of people want. But that's by no means certain. Polling often suggests that most people haven't changed their minds, and those who voted leave will still vote leave, and visa versa. So I'm skeptical that this one result of clarity will occur. Whichever way it would go, I think it would be tight. Such is the division we see.

I think all it'll do is just sow even more discontent and hatred among our population. I think we would all need to think through these questions very carefully before we plunged the country into another vote.

Thus is only way forward from this mess that I can see is a soft Brexit, that implements the first referendum, whilst respecting the closeness of the vote, and provides a platform that can be refined over time. If a party wants to stand at General Elections with a manifesto for another referendum, and they gain power on that mandate, then by all means we have to honour that come wat may.
Click to expand...

The referendum would not be the same. Thats why there is no point connecting the 2. Just as the last one was not connected to the 1970s vote.

We vote on the deals on the table.

Do you want to continue to eat the cake that is full of cat sick or now that you know its full of cat sick do you think you might pass?
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
The referendum would not be the same. Thats why there is no point connecting the 2. Just as the last one was not connected to the 1970s vote.

We vote on the deals on the table.

Do you want to continue to eat the cake that is full of cat sick or now that you know its full of cat sick do you think you might pass?
Click to expand...
I have heard remaining in the EU described as many things but that is the best.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
The referendum would not be the same. Thats why there is no point connecting the 2. Just as the last one was not connected to the 1970s vote.

We vote on the deals on the table.

Do you want to continue to eat the cake that is full of cat sick or now that you know its full of cat sick do you think you might pass?
Click to expand...

But what does 'Remain' mean? You can't define it because whatever way you look at it we simply cannot go back to where we were as if nothing happened.
 
Druss_the_Legend said:
The referendum would not be the same. Thats why there is no point connecting the 2. Just as the last one was not connected to the 1970s vote.

We vote on the deals on the table.

Do you want to continue to eat the cake that is full of cat sick or now that you know its full of cat sick do you think you might pass?
Click to expand...

We can pencil the next vote in for 40 years time then.
You can't seriously suggest that any vote held in the short term wouldn't be connected to the 2016 vote.
And as you say - what deals would be on the table? It's a good question.
 
It’s about opininos at the end of the day.

I think the MPs are to blame for this mess.

It is their job to represent the people who put them in Parliament to sort this out and not think of what they want and personal ambitions etc.

Once the result was known nearly three years ago the best people to get the best deal from all Parties should have been involved.

There remit was to honour the result and get on with carrying it out.

Not bickering and sulking like they are now because they got a ticking off and told a few home truths.

Everyone in the House are to blame, not the British public who called for Brexit, they just want them to deliver what they were asked to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

;