Altfish
Veteran Member
But not on the generous terms we currently have. We'd have to join the Euro, be part of Schengen, etc.
No, once we are out that's it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Second Brexit Vote?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
No, once we are out that's it.
That is a fair question. I figure that the answer depends a lot on which party would be in power and how much hassle it felt it had to put up with from Leavers. The 2016 referendum, I am told, was an attempt by David Cameron at appeasing pesky Leavers. It backfired.
Brexit makes no logical sense and any self-respecting politician will realize that at some level, even if there are noisy people demanding otherwise (as apparently is also the case in Italy and Greece). It reminds me of Brazilians complaining about the IMF's help a few decades ago.
JRM answered your question back in 2016, Estro. He said that it would not be the end of it. And in that he was right. Brexit as an idea must be discredited if the UK is to recover a measure of peace. A referendum only emboldened it and furthered the trouble.
Really?
Which apparently even you see fit to keep hidden. Do they truly exist at all?
That seems to be very dependent on the specific place.
You seem to be neglecting the possibility that the Government and Parliament realize that it is a no-win project. Which it sure seems to be.
This touches on a few different issues:
- it's foolish, IMO, to base decisions as impactful as leaving the EU on a simple majority. Some sort of supermajority should have been required. When the threshold is just 50% plus one vote, then small changes in public sentiment can cause major fundamental, structural upheaval. That being said, if 50% plus one vote is the threshold to adopt Brexit, then 50% plus one vote should be the threshold to abandon Brexit.
- as long as the sense is that some past referendum still reflects public sentiment, it doesn't make sense to hold another one. This is more about public appetite for the disruption and expense of a referendum, though, not about some specific minimum spam if time between referendums. If there's significant call for a second referendum, it should happen... regardless of the outcome of the first one.
I think that public understanding of the implications has changed enough that it wouldn't be reasonable at this point to assume that the Brexit referendum is still an accurate reflection of the views of the British people.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Some people simply can't be told. They have to feel. Without doing the experiment there will always be some who swear how beautiful it will be.
HonestJoe
Well-Known Member
Oh, it is no-win, that's the problem but that's also why they need to sort it out. Voters only tend to tell them what we want in a perfect world. They have to sort out the least worst viable option.
Quite so.
That sense does not seem to exist. Certainly not among Remainers. Considerable evidence exists that it does not exist among Leavers either, given how firmly they resist a confirmatory referendum despite three years of considerable inner conflict and little resolution.
From where I stand, that looks like a given. There has been quite a lot of call, albeit balanced with quite a lot of refusal.
I so agree with this. Besides, the very demographics have changed to the point that it is very legitimate to hold doubts on how much of the 2016 results still apply.
Unfair regulations of the Maastricht Treaty ..artt 103 and 104...that brought to the Andreatta-Van Miert agreement
That would be in Document 2 here. What is unfair about them? Or is it just that they are not supportive of nationalism, which would make them welcome by my perspective?
EUR-Lex - 12012M/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex
Which, from what I gather, handled the privatization of IRI, an Italian company.
I take it that you are claiming that it is unfair to hold the Italian government accountable for IRI's debts in the terms of that agreement? Or is it something else?
European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - COMMISSION DECIDES TO EXTEND ANDREATTA-VAN MIERT AGREEMENT SO AS TOCOMPLETE THE REDUCTION OF IRI'S INDEBTEDNESS
Istituto per la Ricostruzione Industriale - Wikipedia
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What is more important though: a democratic decision or the will of the people ?
Precisely.
State Capitalism is something we invented and of course it deals with a Nationalist vision of economics.
And the way we see Economy is our own business...not Germany's or France's.
Otherwise this EU is nothing but a Franco-German banking dictatorship.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
There should be a second one just because the first one shouldn't have been done to begin with. Let me explain...
Some questions shouldn't be asked because they are too vague to deserve an answer. There was poor wording in the first referendum. Everyone had different expectations on what leaving might entail. NOW that everyone knows what to expect, more or less, is the perfect time to know whether people want to go through with it.
You're welcome
I say a definite no,I say no because the first hasn't been respected so why should a second,how many referendums should there be till they (the remains) want till they get what they want.
The people who voted leave have had to endure many insults like "uneducated to answer a complex question" of leave or remain,"too old",in remains arsenal is dragging brexit out long enough for long enough that all the older generation who voted leave snuff it giving remain a chance of a majority,really pathetic and even worse are the liberal Democrats who just want to undemocratically ignore the referendum altogether.
I understand what you are saying, but don't forget that the remain side has bungled your idea by preaching fear. As Laika observes:
Fear and suppression were used as tools to suppress the vote. The people were told they were stupid, that they were fools, that their vote was inconsequential. This was trumpeted by government sources, state sponsored media and generally anyone who wasn't 'Free' media. All the independent sources saw this for what it was: fear mongering.
Now that really complicates redoing the referendum, because the EU has a record of ignoring referendums and sending them back to be voted on again. That's not how things are supposed to work, and no government should be allowed to ignore the vote while it cajoles the voters into capitulating to another decision.
I just don't know what you make of that statement.You're welcome
The first was demonstrably a mistake. A very serious mistake, and more than a bit offensive to the UK's democracy and institutions at that.
And it is exactly because it can't be respected that it must be replaced by something else. If there is some less traumatic option that a new referendum, I have not learned of it.
Be prepared to expect those insults as part of the status quo then.
That will be the case anyway, but considerably more so if Brexit is crystalized into full reality. Let's not even talk about what a No Deal would entail.