Ah, yes. The people have spoken and those that were in the minority are spitting their dummies out and want another vote before we implement what was decided in the last vote and if they lose that one, another vote...
You are forgetting about the silent remain vote. You know the ones who thought it wasn't worth it but could have swung it the other way if they'd known the outcome. Surely that is worth another vote? And what about the ones who didn't know what they were voting for? But now do? I don't get this - the vote was to leave the EU or not. It did not delve into what that entailed in all its infinite details. The vote never purported to. We had campaigners from both sides spouting any old bollocks to swing the vote but that is irrelevant. We were asked do we want to leave the EU or not, whatever that entails - we were clearly told that we did not know the detail of that exit. We voted to leave regardless - that was the peoples choice. Therefore in the interests of democracy that is what we should do. Personally I'd allow a 2nd vote as long as the costs are met in taxes by those who demand it, if the vote is confirmed in a 2nd vote. Also if we do have a re-vote, it is absolutely essential that only those who voted 1st time round should be able to vote 2nd time round. Otherwise the whole things becomes an even bigger farce. I mean surely you couldn't allow people who couldn't be arsed the first time round to swing the vote one way or the other. That would be completely wrong surely? I'm sure we will be told that these people abstained because there wasn't enough information... I was a remainer but I don't really want to be buddied up with these huffy remainers demanding a second vote. Our choice was not the popular one, get over it.
Indeed. I can't remember the quote exactly but Frankie Boyle likened it to having a vote as to whether you wanted a pizza. You vote yes and then find out that the topping for that pizza was bird poo. Would you still want the pizza?
What % of those people who voted to leave would do so again if asked now? I think that's the point that Corbyn is trying to get across. I'm not his biggest fan but it's kind of a valid question. This whole Brexit thing is serious ****, why shouldn't we ask people again if they're really sure? When I delete a programme off my recordable tv box it asks me if I'm sure if I want to delete it, and whilst there is the luxury of being able to retrieve it if I click yes by mistake, Brexit does not afford us the same luxury. Once we're out we're out (if only by name).
We were told this was the vote, so we went and voted. As I say the only way I'd entertain a 2nd vote is that the following two conditions are agreed: 1. The cost of re-running the vote is met by those demanding a re-vote via an uplift in their taxes if the vote to leave is confirmed. Afterall they will have wasted every ****ers time and money. 2. Only those who voted first time round should be allowed to vote second time round. Reality is though any second vote should be simply two choices - leave with no deal or leave with May's deal. The decision to leave has already been taken. Its now just the terms of that which should be up for discussion. Anyway has anyone considered if the EU would accept the scrapping of article 50? If so does everyone expect them to accept it being discarded and we all skip happily off into the sunset? I think this would be unlikely and the EU would expect some concessions from the UK to balance the disruption caused over the last 2 years. Perhaps an end to our rebate or a commitment to joining the Euro would be demanded. We'd need clarity on that before anything else.
Interesting point. Can we revoke Article 50? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39291512 Should know soon apparently as to whether we can or not. Given we said we wanted to leave in the Referendum what would the arguement be for now changing? The vote was leave or remain and we decided to leave. Everyone who voted knew or should have known that the terms of leaving were up for debate and negotiation. No-one knew what the terms would be at the time we voted to leave and I don’t accept we should have another vote now that the terms are apparent. As far as the first vote is concerned nothing has changed from then to now which, for me, merits a new vote. There has been no significant or material changes in what was known at the time of the first vote. It was never suggested that a leave vote was subject to the terms negotiated. For an “oldie” like me the insistence for a further vote is symptomatic of today’s Society where people seem incapable of acknowledging that they have the minority view and that it is the majority view which holds sway even over their’s.
This is it for me. The whole premise seems to be that we now know what Brexit means. Or at least the terms of it. We didn’t vote on that. We voted on whether to leave, full in the knowledge that we didn’t know what the terms would be. It’s almost like the whole thing is being fueled by petulance juice. I didn’t get what I want, so let’s vote again until I do.
Not only that but those at the same table who knew it was going to be bird poo and said so would also be forced to eat it.
If I understand it correctly, many of the leave supporters do not think May's deal is what they voted for. I'm sure that is right, as leave voters had all sorts of different ideas in mind. The second vote would give them a chance to vote for the Brexit they wanted. I'm surprised they are so against it.
I would have preferred a Remain vote but thats not what happened. I feel that a large part of the Leave vote was actually a protest against the Govt. I feel that if we have another vote now that reverses the vote to leave those people that voted leave will feel even more disenfranchised. I would rather leave it to Parliament to sort out what final deal we accept but if it goes to a Referendum I think there should only be. 3 options. Current negotiated deal, No deal, Renegotiate.
And the actual document if you're interested: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180187en.pdf We need a new vote, because the 2016 leave campaign promised things which have now turned out to be undeliverable. You might not have cared about the stuff they promised, but a section of your fellow leave voters did. Since there has been a dramatic change from what was promised to what is now on offer, it seems sensible to put it back to the people with a clear choice - leave with nothing (and basically **** our economy for a generation), take May's deal (and pay through the nose for a worse position than we are currently in), or remain as EU members. Do it on a transferable vote system, so you can rank your choices if you choose. It's doable between now and March.
Just for reference I actually voted to remain. Does your proposal also mean we should also re-run the last General Election as what was promised then and what is currently on offer are dramatically different as well? And the one before that..and the...
We re-run general elections every five years. The idea of this is to punish people who have won an election by promising things they don't deliver. We tend do that quite ruthlessly - it's why you can fit the Liberal Democrat conference in a minibus these days. I'm not sure why it's somehow undemocratic to apply this to this situation. Or why its such a problem to re-run the vote (other than cost and the fact everyone's sick to death of it, but those are small compared to entire future of the country). Either people prefer no-deal to the EU, or May's deal to the EU, then we leave on one of those two options. Or people thought that some of the things being promised by the Leave campaign were better than the EU, but now they know what's actually on offer they prefer staying in. I don't see any of those three options as undemocratic, and I'm curious as to why others don't. If we wanted to leave on any terms, then surely one of the two Leave options would win again (so it's not a betrayal of the original result). We just don't know what public opinion actually is - which is why we vote on things in the first place. I do see that running the same vote again and again until you get the result you want is not fair (you listening, SNP?) but this is a vote on very different things. After all - we voted to enter the EEC, but it's changed dramatically since then. Hence the call for a new vote. Not trying to persuade anyone here - but quite interested to hear why people see it differently. I think people have made some excellent points about how if we vote to stay in we haven't addressed the underlying problems that caused people to vote for a big change in the first place. It also risks disenfranchising people massively. That I don't have an answer to - but again, interested to hear how people think leaving the EU will help with that problem, because I can't see that helping either!
What I don't get is the people saying we'd have violence on the streets from the far right if the vote was reversed. Since when was that a reason not to do something, and isn't it likely we'll have violence anyway if/when the food supply gets disrupted or the hospitals run out of medicine?
