Today we have seen a poll that shows that if people voted today it would produce a result of 53% remain-47% leave. After months where there appeared to be little movement, this represents a change suggesting that some leavers have now admitted they were wrong. That in itself is not surprising with news of some large companies saying that time is running out, but it is significant. Should this movement continue over the next few months what then? Does the government ignore what the people say they want, or does it set out what they have agreed and ask if that is enough to change peoples minds back to what they hoped for a couple of years ago? Of course they could totally ignore the public which would be the least democratic option.
The polls on the eve of the referendum also showed remain on 53% and leave 47% - and we know how that worked out. There is still no statistical change in voting intent.
After the actual vote the figures from polls showed a very close reflection of the actual result. These have been fairly static for months with just a small movement towards remain. This poll however, and I would want to see more, suggests that there has been a swing of a measurable amount. My real point however was if this gap grew over the next few months to let us say for sake of discussion to 10%, what then? Is it right for a government to plough on, example the poll tax, until it defeats them, or is it better for democracy to ask the public to confirm the result of an earlier question?
If the original referendum result reflected the informed view of the electorate, and the developments since then have been consistent with the views expressed by the proponents of each side then a second referendum , once the details of our new relationship with the EU are clear and spelled out, would be an absolute benefit to the whole process. Either the ‘leave’ side were wholly correct, and events have borne that out, or they were wrong and events have confirmed that they were wrong. So what possible harm could a second referendum do to democracy. After all we have elections every few years, as circumstances, voter opinions and actual voters in the population change, more frequently in some situations-no one seems to think that is a denial of democracy.
Until the fixed termed Parliament of five years was brought in, for understandable reasons, governments would call elections at a time when they thought they had the greatest chance of winning a further term. A good example is Harold Wilson. Elected in 1964 with a majority of only 4 seats, he lost seats in by-elections, but after only 18 months he called another general election, which he won providing a comfortable majority. You can argue about the system of having a Prime Minister calling elections to suit their own agenda, but it can go horribly wrong as we have seen recently. Some people wish to have a say in how their country is being run, and it cannot be right to have a single person dictate to them. As I well know many say you have been elected, so get on with it, and if we do not like what you do we will not vote for you at the next election. To say though that through a changing situation it is wrong to seek the opinion of the electorate is not really an argument, but just a way of keeping yourself in power. May thought she would get a ringing endorsement of how she was handling the Brexit issue, and was pulled up very short. The fact was that she was left with a country totally split as to what should happen next. After she does whatever it is she is trying to do, and no one actually knows because her cabinet has not agreed anything yet, are the public going to be told that is what will happen, and you will not have a say? Democracy to have a say, or a PM trying to stay in power?
The only poll that mattered was the referendum. Remainers are desperately trying to find ways to undermine the result that they did not like. Do they want the best of three, best of five just to obtain a return to the status quo? The EU has set too many precedents of not accepting results that went against it. Fortunately the U.K. has a well established democratic system which has stood up to all manner of legal challenges. Brexit means Brexit, Not maybe.
Yes the government has control of Brexit now, there are now no practical obstacles to prevent the inevitable happening. Of course the EU are trying to prevent the UK from appearing to obtain a good working deal to avoid contagion amongst several of the other EU member countries that are becoming increasingly eurosceptic. Both sides are now preparing for a 'no deal' scenario. Hopefully the U.K. will seriously consider walking unless Barnier's intransigence dissipates so harm on both sides can be avoided. Germany's exports to the US are likely to face increased tariffs soon, the last thing Germany needs is increased tariffs to the U.K. as well.
Yes, I think we are all fed up with it now but it was always going to go to the wire, typical last minute EU fudge on the cards. Those on the losing side just need to accept the result and move on. Let them campaign to join the EU superstate in a few years time. Good luck with that one!! The openly pro EU parties, SNP, Lib Dems and Greens, did extremely poorly at the last election.
You have a strange idea of democracy SH. Democracy is an ongoing thing not something which is frozen in time. It would be fundamentally undemocratic to leave the EU. if there was a majority against at the time of leaving. There is nothing undemocratic in asking for a second opinion on something of this importance, particularly when results were so close the first time around. Judges often ask juries to go away and reconsider their verdicts, and nobody screams in outrage at this. Britain is a deeply divided nation as a result of all this which must learn to live with itself afterwards - an attitude of 'We won, you lost - get over it' only pours oil on the flames for many years to come. In exactly the same manner I would have expected that if the remain side had won 52-48% that the concerns of the Brexiters would still have been addressed in some way.
During the vote when Farage thought he was going to lose 52-48 he actually said that being so close it would not be an end to it. Against that the referendum had one purpose. To decide if we were to leave the EU. The vote was run and the decision made to leave. Just because the process of leaving takes a while does not invalidate the referendum. Technically we have handed our notice in so as with a job once you have given in your notice that is the job done. In your scenario Cologne we might end up having dozens of referenda each time we are about to leave or astay someone says the polls have changed and so call for another. That would be a farce.
I do agree, all be it reluctantly as I hate the idea. That said, whilst I don't think there should be a second referendum, if there was one I would not rule out swallowing my principles and voting remain again. I also think that if we did do an about turn then the EU would privately be delighted.
I don't think SH really gives a stuff about what is actually best for the nation. Comes across as saying "my side won and off we go and damn the consequences". A bit like that bloke from Sandbach who phoned in to James O'Brien on LBC the other day. YouTube gold!
The referendum itself was a farce Leo. In order to make such a fundamental change to our countries future a majority of the entire electorate would have had to be in favour, and that was not the case. In such a case as this compulsory voting should have been brought in. It is always the case that those who want change are more likely to actually go to the polls than those who want to keep things as they are - compulsory voting balances that out.
My 'strange idea of democracy' is shared by most of the 17.5 million and quite a few sensible remainers that accept the result. To the person who wrongly stated I voted not for the interest of the nation is wrong, I did exactly that. Time will tell if my decision was worth it but my intention was honourable and not driven by self interest.
In fairness I don't doubt the final sentence at all. I just hope you're proven to be right though I'm not altogether confident about it.
I support your right to a decision as to how to vote SH - and for others to suggest you may have done it for personal reasons and that they perhaps did it for the good of the country is plain daft. We all voted for what we believed in and some of that will have been personal but part will be because we just believed in it. The idea that "we" are honourable but our adversaries are not is itself not honourable.
I agree the referendum was a shambles - however it was what it was. It is no good now moaning that Cameron made a pig's ear of it (see where I went with that one ) - because if it was to be challenged it should have been before the referendum took place. You cannot re-write the rules just because you lose. Like Dan says if there were a second referendum I would certainly vote - and again vote remain. I can accept the argument that the result did not give us a direction and so a second referendum could take place on accepting the brexit we get offered or alternatively accepting no deal and cutting loose and thirdly reversing the first referendum. That has a logic as that was never put to the public. However having a second referendum because a bit of time has passed or because the polls show a different mix I do not accept.
