News1 min ago
Would You Back A Second Referendum
I would not and if one was implemented I won’t vote again, there’s calls for another one, what happened to democracy ?
Answers
Yes I would vote as its a vote hard fought for and a privilege which should not be ignored. What's the point of criticising what's going on in the country then not voting? I would vote again and I would change my vote to remain unless there was a choice of leave with no deal and I would vote for that.. The 2016 vote was done purely on conjecture ,what was going to happen...
09:17 Mon 21st Oct 2019
The 3 choices wasn't my suggestion- I copied and pasted it from APG's post.
If there were to be three choices then they'd have to say we only Remain if Remain got more than 50%. If Remain gets less than 50% we'd go for the Leave option with the highest vote.
But of course if the winning Leave option gets only say 30% of the votes I'm sure Gina Miller or someone would challenge it
If there were to be three choices then they'd have to say we only Remain if Remain got more than 50%. If Remain gets less than 50% we'd go for the Leave option with the highest vote.
But of course if the winning Leave option gets only say 30% of the votes I'm sure Gina Miller or someone would challenge it
A second referendum is not a re-run. The only way to have a rerun is to literally go back in time three years and hold the vote with the same electorate, having been given the same information that they were then.
I appreciate that "I would say that wouldn't I" is an easy rebuttal to my post, but it's also a matter of fact. The electorate has materially changed, the situation has materially changed, and referring the decision back to the people is, by definition, a further exercise of democracy. People are entitled to frame it in political terms, because of course one heavy motivation for holding a second referendum is to provide a different result -- but that can only happen if the electorate has changed its mind since 2016. There is no logic to the suggestion that, if the people of today have changed their mind, then they have no right to say so in a referendum.
I appreciate that "I would say that wouldn't I" is an easy rebuttal to my post, but it's also a matter of fact. The electorate has materially changed, the situation has materially changed, and referring the decision back to the people is, by definition, a further exercise of democracy. People are entitled to frame it in political terms, because of course one heavy motivation for holding a second referendum is to provide a different result -- but that can only happen if the electorate has changed its mind since 2016. There is no logic to the suggestion that, if the people of today have changed their mind, then they have no right to say so in a referendum.
It really galls me to say it but it has come to the point that I would back another referendum. Although democracy has been completely ignored and the skulduggery to thwart the process has been shameful - an election is every 4 years if not less so in 3 1/2 people may well have changed their mind, particularly as they now know what it's all about (a little more). However there is nothing I'd like more than to leave if only to stuff those in government and the population who've tried to quash the result at every turn.
Whilst I voted remain for a variety of reasons, I think we need to get on and leave the EU. There was a referendum and the result needs to be respected, so no, I don't think there should be another referendum. We need to concentrate on other important issues facing the country. The EU issue has hijacked parliament.