Just to add, they will grant an extension for an election and/or referendum to be held. Of that I have no doubt As for the way a referendum is held. A straight 3 way vote would see either a lot of tactical voting or a easy remain win. Neither is really what I want. I would say use an alternative vote system and have a few other possibilities in there like customs union. Problem with that is i'm a bit worried that the compromises would get eliminated early, and leave only no deal and remain, which again, while good for remain wouldn't be great democratically. I think the best solution would be to do a system where second choice are added, then third etc until there's a majority for one and none are eliminated. Unfortunately I bet boris and co will try to use a method that heavily favours leave and them claim that the opposition are running away for rejecting it to try and fool the public like with this election build up. If boris tries to use a system where leave goes up against remain in the first round and then you choose a leave option after, the opposition will rightly reject it and it just proves Johnson is a massive.......... Johnson.
Fortunately, it won’t be Boris organising the second referendum, as it would be a complete farce. Genuine question, if you are happy to stay in a Customs Union, why do you want to leave?
Although I’d like a three way vote, I don’t think it would be right. Leave vote would get split. If there is another vote, it should be two way: leave or remain, set against a majority line to get over. If Remain reach that line, we stay. If leave reach that line, it should be immediately followed up with another vote, choosing deal or no deal* * blimey, this is where it’s all gone wrong. We need Noel Edmunds in running this! Might be less of a fiasco. He could have Macron and Merkels on the end of a big red phone!
Sadly mate it was Degaull that vetoed our involvement in the early days it wasn't until he left we managed to get in. As you Can gather I don't have too much time for some French souls. Also we voted for a Common market not all the political stuff that came later. Sadly in my opinion all political parties in the UK were not wise as to how things were going. Bad decisions were made by all parties in power. However that is history and not of much relevance today. I guess we will not see eye to eye on this subject.............mind you nothing unusual in that is there?
As I said, I agree with your first statement but completely disagree with the second. Thats the most leave favouring way of voting, and doesn't solve my major issue with the first referendum. It doesn't put the agreed leave option up against remain. People still wont know what they are voting for when they choose leave over remain. Any referendum I would support HAS to put remain against whatever option we choose to leave. If we have to do it that way, choose the leave option first round, THEN put it against remain. Not the other way around. There's going to be some serious arguments about this if we decide to hold a second referendum though.
As I said before, I disagree with both of you. The fact is that Remain is the status quo, and the status quo should be the default option, unless a 66% majority is reached by any Leave option. Don’t forget, the Leave campaign cheated in the last referendum, or they would have lost. Cummings will no doubt cheat again the next time, unless he has been thrown in jail, so it should be made harder for a fraudulent Leave campaign backed with undeclared Russian money to win.
I back a supermajority for major referendums generally and i've said for a long while that the original referendum should have needed one. I'm not keen on changing the rules midway though. Saying you needed 50% and after they get that saying you now need more leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If I was an MP I would probably abstain for a vote on implementing that. Also i think 66% is too high. When i thought about this i imagined situations that I would be in favour of, say implementating gun control if we didn't have it, with a forced purchase of weapons. 66% felt too difficult to get. I felt like 55% was a good firm decision while still being representative of what the population want. Anyway I would be in favour of implementing a requirement of a supermajority for major referendums as soon as the second Brexit referendum takes place whichever result. **** the SNP if they feel like this is targeted at them.
That is why we need the extension. We can then do a rerun of the referendum with a two thirds majority needed for change.
Do you really think it will be declared null and void? In which case they will have to reschedule a referendum surely?
There’s a court case starting in December to get the referendum overturned because of the fraudulent Vote Leave campaign. I agree there should be another referendum anyway, but if the original one is overturned, that means the rules could be changed for the second one, so that a supermajority for leaving would be required.
Amazed that there are overseas retirees relying on a uk state pension and healthcare who still want out.
Especially when the new Work & Pensions Secretary wants people on State Pension to start paying National Insurance on their pension payments. This would mean someone whose only income was the £129 Old Age Pension would have that reduced by about £3 per week. My own income from my NHS Pension and State Pension would be reduced by about £40 per week. Nice bunch we have in power right now. All this is to help pay for the chaos caused by a no-deal Brexit, while their super-rich backers continue to avoid paying any tax at all.
I was going to suggest similar, as in voting for Leave or Remain, but rather than have a second referendum have a sub section on the voting form allowing everyone to choose Deal or No Deal at the same time, to save on the expense of another referendum, should Leave take it. Remainers would probably vote for a deal, if it came to it. I’m sure most Leavers would be bright enough to work it out as they have always claimed to know exactly what they had voted for.
