Kemi Badenoch In The News Today... At...
Politics0 min ago
Could There Be Another Eu Referendum?
Is there any possibility that the UK could have another referendum on leaving the EU? There seems to be widespread shock at the result and furthermore it would appear that a lot of people who voted to leave didn't have a clue if the real ramifications.
I know that they said it was a one time vote but that could have been politics speak. Is there a chance that if there seemed to be enough of an outcry at the result that they could have one final vote to see if the result would change?
I know that they said it was a one time vote but that could have been politics speak. Is there a chance that if there seemed to be enough of an outcry at the result that they could have one final vote to see if the result would change?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobadob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Bertrum
//
Ok but can we ban the over 65s from voting this time. There days are numbered anyway
//
Some of them might last 30 years past 65. People have been obsessed with health and fitness since the 70s.
I was too young to vote in 1975 and this was my first (and only) chance to express my opinion of the EU.
Every on of those petitioners is a sore loser.
Every "protest vote only" change-of-mind-er was a mindless berk, not paying attention to what putting an X on a piece of paper means.
Voting on a lifetime-lasting referendum issue specifically to cane a here-today-gone-tomorrow government is insane.
//
Ok but can we ban the over 65s from voting this time. There days are numbered anyway
//
Some of them might last 30 years past 65. People have been obsessed with health and fitness since the 70s.
I was too young to vote in 1975 and this was my first (and only) chance to express my opinion of the EU.
Every on of those petitioners is a sore loser.
Every "protest vote only" change-of-mind-er was a mindless berk, not paying attention to what putting an X on a piece of paper means.
Voting on a lifetime-lasting referendum issue specifically to cane a here-today-gone-tomorrow government is insane.
CrapatCryptics:
// Jim you seem to be forgetting the 17 million plus who didnt believe we couldnt survive and prosper alone. //
I thought that was entirely my point. Telling Scotland that it couldn't survive outside the UK as a campaign strategy is surely as doomed to failure as the one that those 17.4 million people just rejected.
For myself I no longer know where I stand on the issue. Two days ago I voted to keep the UK in the EU, as I thought it was better to be part of an economic union in spite of its flaws; two years ago I'd voted to keep Scotland in the UK for essentially the same reasons. Those two results are now in conflict with each other. I wouldn't be totally surprised if many other people living here feel the same way. We thought that Scotland was served best by being in the UK and the EU. I don't think this vision of Scotland exists any more.
I'll be interested to see what direction England and Wales chooses to take over the next couple of years, and I'll reserve judgement until then, but it's never been clearer that the geographical border between England and Scotland is also a sharp political border.
// Jim you seem to be forgetting the 17 million plus who didnt believe we couldnt survive and prosper alone. //
I thought that was entirely my point. Telling Scotland that it couldn't survive outside the UK as a campaign strategy is surely as doomed to failure as the one that those 17.4 million people just rejected.
For myself I no longer know where I stand on the issue. Two days ago I voted to keep the UK in the EU, as I thought it was better to be part of an economic union in spite of its flaws; two years ago I'd voted to keep Scotland in the UK for essentially the same reasons. Those two results are now in conflict with each other. I wouldn't be totally surprised if many other people living here feel the same way. We thought that Scotland was served best by being in the UK and the EU. I don't think this vision of Scotland exists any more.
I'll be interested to see what direction England and Wales chooses to take over the next couple of years, and I'll reserve judgement until then, but it's never been clearer that the geographical border between England and Scotland is also a sharp political border.
Different people living here will have different perspectives MM. I know that where you stand you've got what you wanted both times. For myself, the defeat on Thursday has given me some cause to reassess my decision to keep the UK together. I don't mean to say that I would vote for an Independent Scotland tomorrow -- well, I might, but it would be an emotionally-charged decision rather than a rational one.
But Brexit throws open the possibility more, depending on the direction that is chosen. Who knows? maybe I'll feel it's in my interests to be on this side of the border, separate from an England that is too inward-looking. I don't really know, is what I'm saying.
But Brexit throws open the possibility more, depending on the direction that is chosen. Who knows? maybe I'll feel it's in my interests to be on this side of the border, separate from an England that is too inward-looking. I don't really know, is what I'm saying.
I’ve given your comments a little thought, flobabdob. I wonder if you have.
“And, as I say, it certainly appears that many people didn't know all the details of what leaving means.”
Apart from being somewhat insulting, why is that any more true today than it was on Thursday? Would you be suggesting that if the vote had been to remain?
“And, although it was all carried out democratically, there is something uncomfortable about people aged 60+ pushing through a decision that young people are obviously against. “
How do you know the vote was carried by those aged 60+? No figures on the age profile of voters is recorded or is available (in the actual referendum, I mean, not opinion polls which once again have proved spectacularly unreliable throughout). And why are the votes of over 60s of any less value than those younger? Bear in mind that older people have had to endure the car crash that is currently the EU which has been getting progressively worse as time goes on for far longer than younger people. They have lived with the results of the EU’s incompetence and intransigence. When younger people get older and no longer know everything they, too, may take a different view but for now they are stuck with a majority decision they may not like. Life's a bit tough like that sometimes.
It is true that older people will live with the results of this (and any other) vote for less time than younger people. What are you suggesting, a “sliding scale” of the value of a person’s vote, perhaps something like this:
2.0 for those 18-30
1.5 for the 31-40 year olds
1.0 for 41-50
0.5 for 51-60
0.0 for the over 60s (about whom you feel so uncomfortable)
What about younger people with terminal illnesses? No vote for them since they won’t live to see the consequences? A person of 60 could have 40 more years to live. The damage inflicted by the EU in the last 40 years is but nothing to what we will see if it goes on in the same direction for the next 40 and older people have every right to an equal say.
“Who will have to live with the outcome?”
Everybody in the country.
The idea of democracy is that the majority holds sway. We don’t have a second crack at a vote when nothing has changed just because some people dislike the outcome. That’s what the EU does and that’s one of the very reasons why we need to be out. The only thing that has changed since Thursday is that the result has been announced.
This question was not one about who will be a fiver a week better or worse off; it was not one about whether a trip to Benidorm will cost an extra £20; it was not even one about how many migrants come here. It was a fundamental question about who governs the UK because without a satisfactory answer to that, all the other questions need not be asked because the neither the UK electorate nor our government will have any say in them.
None of the questions like the one you raised would have been asked if it had been 52% (or even 50.1%) to remain. I doubt many Brexiteers (certainly not me) would have been clamouring with all sorts of reasons why a second vote should be held. Mr Cameron would have been on the steps of No 10 announcing proudly that the people have spoken and we now need to press on. This is no different. The people have spoken but some people, including many in government, do not like what they have said. Well that’s tough; the question was straightforward; the issues were clear; the answer has been provided and the government needs to crack on and act on the wishes of the people.
“And, as I say, it certainly appears that many people didn't know all the details of what leaving means.”
Apart from being somewhat insulting, why is that any more true today than it was on Thursday? Would you be suggesting that if the vote had been to remain?
“And, although it was all carried out democratically, there is something uncomfortable about people aged 60+ pushing through a decision that young people are obviously against. “
How do you know the vote was carried by those aged 60+? No figures on the age profile of voters is recorded or is available (in the actual referendum, I mean, not opinion polls which once again have proved spectacularly unreliable throughout). And why are the votes of over 60s of any less value than those younger? Bear in mind that older people have had to endure the car crash that is currently the EU which has been getting progressively worse as time goes on for far longer than younger people. They have lived with the results of the EU’s incompetence and intransigence. When younger people get older and no longer know everything they, too, may take a different view but for now they are stuck with a majority decision they may not like. Life's a bit tough like that sometimes.
It is true that older people will live with the results of this (and any other) vote for less time than younger people. What are you suggesting, a “sliding scale” of the value of a person’s vote, perhaps something like this:
2.0 for those 18-30
1.5 for the 31-40 year olds
1.0 for 41-50
0.5 for 51-60
0.0 for the over 60s (about whom you feel so uncomfortable)
What about younger people with terminal illnesses? No vote for them since they won’t live to see the consequences? A person of 60 could have 40 more years to live. The damage inflicted by the EU in the last 40 years is but nothing to what we will see if it goes on in the same direction for the next 40 and older people have every right to an equal say.
“Who will have to live with the outcome?”
Everybody in the country.
The idea of democracy is that the majority holds sway. We don’t have a second crack at a vote when nothing has changed just because some people dislike the outcome. That’s what the EU does and that’s one of the very reasons why we need to be out. The only thing that has changed since Thursday is that the result has been announced.
This question was not one about who will be a fiver a week better or worse off; it was not one about whether a trip to Benidorm will cost an extra £20; it was not even one about how many migrants come here. It was a fundamental question about who governs the UK because without a satisfactory answer to that, all the other questions need not be asked because the neither the UK electorate nor our government will have any say in them.
None of the questions like the one you raised would have been asked if it had been 52% (or even 50.1%) to remain. I doubt many Brexiteers (certainly not me) would have been clamouring with all sorts of reasons why a second vote should be held. Mr Cameron would have been on the steps of No 10 announcing proudly that the people have spoken and we now need to press on. This is no different. The people have spoken but some people, including many in government, do not like what they have said. Well that’s tough; the question was straightforward; the issues were clear; the answer has been provided and the government needs to crack on and act on the wishes of the people.
-- answer removed --
I see nothing uncomfortable about people aged 60+ being for a decision that young people are obviously against. Wisdom comes with age: unless anyone wants to admit every year they feel more foolish than the last. What I do find alarming though is how some of the younger generation is so rude and dismisive of the older generation. It goes beyond being a bad sport and is not only personal, it seems to be the norm to ignore the sacrifices that the generation made to achieve what they did, and a right to moan when they don't get what they want immediately. The younger generation should think of the future not just themselves: after all they're only here for another 65 years approximately, those who come after will have to live with their impulsive decisions.
I don't like the idea of excluding anyone from a vote, or from weighting their vote less, because they disagree with you. I don't like the result on Thursday but I have to accept it. In that, I agree with NJ entirely. It's disappointing, though, that his arguments are coloured by a sort of "old people know better anyway" reasoning.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Politics4 mins ago
Spam & Scams5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
