You may get your wish if BRExit happens.
-
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
Some clarifications about the validity of the 2016 referendum early in this video.
Heyo
Veteran Member
We all know, or at least should know, that only the words in the contract count, no matter what the agent promises. So, when people make assumptions based on promises by politicians we are back at "too stupid to vote".
Now, if conditions changed on which the vote was based, it would be sensible to hold a new vote, but they haven't. Parliament could still pretend conditions have changed but that would only create a precedent for the next government to declare a new change and a third vote.
Brexit has been a cluster**** from the get-go and at the moment the only way out seems to be a leap forward and a belly flop.
Last edited by a moderator:
There have been quite a few significant condition changes, not least among them that promises of remaining in the single market have mysteriously dissolved.
Of course, it makes a lot more sense to simply point out that the 2016 referendum can't seriously be proposed as binding. It simply lacks the proper requisites.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Where I live I can confidently state that is not true at all. You are bound to what you promise. It is just harder to prove what has been stated verbally.
When you vote in a politician or in a political party you have to rely, up to a certain extent, on what they promise. That they will at least try to do what they have promised.
But conditions HAVE changed. Now people know what are the conditions for leaving the EU. They didn't befofe.
In general, 2 votes are more democratic than 1 vote.
If another referendum would produce a different result, then the result of the first referendum wasn't definitive.
52% to 48% of votes are democratic.
Which is greater,52% or 48%,seems definitive enough.
Which was greater. Which side has more support now remains to be seen... and is what matters.
It would have made sense to require a supermajority to start the Brexit process... 2/3 support, maybe. Then, it would have been justifiable to demand 2/3 support to abandon Brexit now.
... but you talk about being undemocratic and hypocritical; it would be both of these things to say that the "remain" side is any less entitled to a referendum than the "leave" side was, or to demand any higher a level of support to stay than you say was enough to leave.
Three years ago, 52% was enough support to decide to change the direction of your country. If that was true then, it's true now.
The "remain" side got a referendum,it didn't produce their desired result,It felt the same for the people who voted against joining.
Another referendum would cause much more trouble than it could ever cure,let's suppose there was another referendum and remain won this time,it would be close again for sure,leave would be in their rights to ask for another and so on.
There is also another factor that everyone seems to forget,the EU could say no or want to re negotiate our membership on their terms,we've never been a happy member,we would be worse off than before and really I think they just want us gone.
Charles de Gaulle got it right way back.
Charles de Gaulle twice vetoed the UK’s membership of the EEC in 1963 and 1967. At a press conference in 1963, he cited Britain’s economic and historical ‘peculiarities’, including its links to the United States as well as the Commonwealth, which, in his view, had the potential to impact upon the future cohesion of the Common Market.
At a meeting in 1967, de Gaulle further set out his case against Britain’s entry into the EEC. He argued that the country’s historical links to the Commonwealth and links with America meant that British entry into the Community would be destabilising and that Britain would be a divisive force amongst member states.
Yerda
Veteran Member
I don't want another referendum. In or out of the EU is no great concern for me (I opted not to vote) and I'm sick of the fantasyland politics, media coverage and listening to everyone harp on as if it's the most important issue we face.
After ten years of watching the tory government repeatedly sink the boot into every vulnerable community in the country (to the delight of their members) we're arguing about whether or not to leave with a deal (as if it were possible that we aren't going to negotiate a trade deal with our biggest trade partner) or whether Vote Leave broke electoral rules (it was run by professional theives, why wouldn't they?). And somehow most of the country has got it into their head that this is Labour's fault somehow. The only party that didn't call for a bloody referendum.
That's right. That's why any country with a lick of sense doesn't base these sorts of foundational decisions on a simple majority.
The issue now, though, is any Brexit supporter can recognize that Brexit can't pass anything but a simple majority under even ideal conditions, so now they can't support a threshold that would make sense.
Augustus
…
Because if you can't see any logical reason in favour then you are obviously either badly informed yourself or lacking in ability to process such information. Glasshouses, stones, etc.
If you genuinely believe that support for Brexit, a complex issue that affects society on multiple levels and has support from people all across the political spectrum, can only be due to some kind of obtusely wilful ignorance rather than genuine, rational reasons I don't see any other way to put it.
Do you genuinely believe that or was it more a figure of speech and you can see numerous logical reasons to favour Brexit, but despite this, you just think that remain is by far the better option?
Do you think any of the following could be considered logical?
- You would prefer the British Parliament to make the laws that affect the British electorate
- You favour decentralisation over centralisation.
- You believe free movement of people has suppressed wages in numerous sectors of the economy and you happen to work in one of these sectors.
- You believe EU membership has been a major contributory factor to the rise of the far right in Europe, and wish to prevent that happening in the UK.
- You believe that the transnational and supranational nature of the EU and consequent lack of a unified public sphere makes it impossible to hold it to sufficient standards of democratic accountability.
- You think the EU keeps on making bad decisions for ideological reasons: Euro, rapid expansion, etc.
- You do not wish to belong to an organisation that has stated aims of increasing its power vis-a-vis member states, and where high profile members (such as the EU's chief Brexit coordinator) openly advocate a 'European Empire' based on simple majority voting that can project its power onto the global arena.
Augustus
…
Well a party won a general election with a manifesto pledge to hold a referendum so the public ultimately voted for it.
Also , if you stopped MPs talking about it you'd just be further opening the floor to unaccountable non-MP voices like journalists, Farage, etc.
Long-term economic studies are nonsense anyway regardless of the economist's intentions.
Augustus
…
The UK joined under a simple majority vote too.
While it would have been reasonable to use a qualified majority vote if that had been what was offered, the Conservative manifesto pledged "We will then put these changes to the British people in a straight in-out referendum on our membership of the European Union by the end of 2017... We will honour the result of the referendum, whatever the outcome.", which, while not explicit, certainly implies simple majority. People voted them into office, and that's the nature of democracy.
While I think it would be harmful to British politics in the long run, especially seeing as Labour also made a pledge during the last election to honour the Brexit result, only electing a party with a manifesto pledge to hold a 2nd referendum would make such a vote legitimate.
The electorate voted for a party promising a referendum that would be honoured. They voted for Brexit. They voted in another election that gave 90% or so of the seats in parliament to parties promising to honour the result of Brexit.
If another election and another referendum went the other way, then that certainly wouldn't be the end of it. Best of 3? Best of 5?
What's more telling is how people would act if the result had gone the other way. What % of Remainers would be calling for a 2nd vote, and what % of Brexiteers would consider the issue settled for a generation? Based on this, there's certainly a lot of hypocrites out there.
Last edited:
And that's even more reason to respect the first referendum result and move on,instead the europhiles have forcast doom and gloom since the referendum result and have absolutely got it all wrong and in fact the worst effect has been the uncertainty caused by remains attempts to delay or stop brexit.
Martin
Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
It could end up creating problems, rather than solving them. What would happen if Remain won a second referendum, say with 52% of the vote? The Leave side would say "Best of three", with some justification. This result wouldn't resolve the question, it would just add more fuel to the fire.
If Leave won again, that might resolve things, at least for a while.
If Leave won again, that might resolve things, at least for a while.
I was thinking more of an impartial authority (if one could be put together), like from a university or just a group of 'independent experts', and dealing with all aspects of the withdrawal (sociological, scientific cooperation, effects on food-miles, NI issues, etc.), which didn't seem to be presented fully before the vote.