Did Covid Change Your Lifestyle?
ChatterBank0 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
//YES, Because this time we will know what we are voting for,…//
So what will we be voting for next time, Gully, that we didn’t know about last time?
//Strange that it would require one referendum to Remain but two or more to Leave. Some democracy.!//
Exactly the point that I have been making over and over, retro. Had the vote been 52:48 to remain, Mr Cameron would have appeared on the doorstep of No 10, proudly announcing “Well, that’s that for a generation. The people have spoken. On we go.” There would have been no talk of the margin being too close for a decision, no votes in Parliament about “how” we might remain and absolutely no accommodation whatsoever for the disappointed 48%. I keep raising this and I’m told that the leavers already have their accommodation because we have opt outs from Schengen and the euro (for the moment). This is nonsense. The UK (along with other members) had those opt outs whether there was a referendum or not and whatever the result. The electorate knew that our membership conditions provided these “privileges”. The leavers would have been told “Bad luck. You lost. Get over it.” And it would not have taken three years to tell them that.
//In theory we should not revote but we did not know what we were voting for in the first one,..//
You must speak for yourself, anne. I’ve been studying the EU and its predecessors for more than a quarter of a century. I knew exactly what I was voting for in the first one and it wasn’t for an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty (which any “deal” would be). If you didn’t you should have done a bit more research. All you know now that you didn’t (but should have) known then is that the EU wold never let us leave under conditions which would give us any competitive advantage and that our MPs would do everything they can to prevent our leaving.
//A copy of the 'Boris' deal sent to every household should they wish to read it before making a decision.//
The electorate were, apparently too ignorant to make an informed choice on whether to leave or remain. But now they are competent enough to absorb 500+ pages of an international treaty.
//…..the situation has materially changed,//
How has it “materially changed”, (other than the EU has predictably produced two “deals” that are as bad as each other and Parliament has sought to prevent us leaving on any terms) Jim?
To say we know more now than in 2016 is plainly absurd. Nobody (apart from perhaps me) is going to read Boris’s deal and so will be none the wiser. The only two things we know now are as I’ve pointed out above. But, we didn’t then (and still don’t now) know what plans the EU has in store for our future should we remain. One thing’s for sure – the EU in 2030 will be unlike the EU in 2020 and voters are fooling themselves if they think remaining in the EU is the “safe option” because they know where they stand. They don’t. They will stand where they are put by the Euromaniacs and that might not necessarily be where they want to be. The difference is they will be unable to do anything about it.
So what will we be voting for next time, Gully, that we didn’t know about last time?
//Strange that it would require one referendum to Remain but two or more to Leave. Some democracy.!//
Exactly the point that I have been making over and over, retro. Had the vote been 52:48 to remain, Mr Cameron would have appeared on the doorstep of No 10, proudly announcing “Well, that’s that for a generation. The people have spoken. On we go.” There would have been no talk of the margin being too close for a decision, no votes in Parliament about “how” we might remain and absolutely no accommodation whatsoever for the disappointed 48%. I keep raising this and I’m told that the leavers already have their accommodation because we have opt outs from Schengen and the euro (for the moment). This is nonsense. The UK (along with other members) had those opt outs whether there was a referendum or not and whatever the result. The electorate knew that our membership conditions provided these “privileges”. The leavers would have been told “Bad luck. You lost. Get over it.” And it would not have taken three years to tell them that.
//In theory we should not revote but we did not know what we were voting for in the first one,..//
You must speak for yourself, anne. I’ve been studying the EU and its predecessors for more than a quarter of a century. I knew exactly what I was voting for in the first one and it wasn’t for an alternative to the Lisbon Treaty (which any “deal” would be). If you didn’t you should have done a bit more research. All you know now that you didn’t (but should have) known then is that the EU wold never let us leave under conditions which would give us any competitive advantage and that our MPs would do everything they can to prevent our leaving.
//A copy of the 'Boris' deal sent to every household should they wish to read it before making a decision.//
The electorate were, apparently too ignorant to make an informed choice on whether to leave or remain. But now they are competent enough to absorb 500+ pages of an international treaty.
//…..the situation has materially changed,//
How has it “materially changed”, (other than the EU has predictably produced two “deals” that are as bad as each other and Parliament has sought to prevent us leaving on any terms) Jim?
To say we know more now than in 2016 is plainly absurd. Nobody (apart from perhaps me) is going to read Boris’s deal and so will be none the wiser. The only two things we know now are as I’ve pointed out above. But, we didn’t then (and still don’t now) know what plans the EU has in store for our future should we remain. One thing’s for sure – the EU in 2030 will be unlike the EU in 2020 and voters are fooling themselves if they think remaining in the EU is the “safe option” because they know where they stand. They don’t. They will stand where they are put by the Euromaniacs and that might not necessarily be where they want to be. The difference is they will be unable to do anything about it.
//As an Irish person, would you be happy with that?//
Quite frankly, Zacs, the border in Ireland is a non-issue that in any case effects a very small minority of the people in the UK. People living in NI must realise they live in the UK and that the UK is leaving the EU. Those living in the ROI must understand they do not live in the UK and they will soon be in a country with a land border with a non-EU nation. Nations in mainland Europe manage with that, they will have to do the same. No doubt various factions will threaten to bomb everybody until they get their own way; that bridge must be crossed when it is met. I don't think the people of NI have much to shout about anyway. They were given their own Parliament and have been unable to operate it for close on three years so perhaps they need to consider their future as part of the UK anyway.
Quite frankly, Zacs, the border in Ireland is a non-issue that in any case effects a very small minority of the people in the UK. People living in NI must realise they live in the UK and that the UK is leaving the EU. Those living in the ROI must understand they do not live in the UK and they will soon be in a country with a land border with a non-EU nation. Nations in mainland Europe manage with that, they will have to do the same. No doubt various factions will threaten to bomb everybody until they get their own way; that bridge must be crossed when it is met. I don't think the people of NI have much to shout about anyway. They were given their own Parliament and have been unable to operate it for close on three years so perhaps they need to consider their future as part of the UK anyway.
Were I an Irish person I'd hope I'd see the issue clearly and realise that it's the terms that the EU are insisting on that is causing the issue; and that on no-deal it is up to the UK and RoI to decide what border arrangements they want, and for the RoI to talk it over with their EU overlords. The solution would be in Irish hands as it should be.
What is the point of asking a question to which you already know the answer, NJ? Just because you view the two deals negotiated with the EU as unsatisfactory doesn't mean that they do not represent a material change. For example, such deals represent the current best the UK can achieve in its negotiations with the EU, and they are a far cry from what was suggested would be possible: all of that stuff about "easiest deal in history", etc etc. "No Deal", meanwhile, while always a logical possibility, was only ever mentioned by the Remain campaign, and then as a threat to be dismissed. Now it is being trumpeted as the only true form of Brexit. That, too, represents a material change, regardless of your assessment of No Deal.
//Strange that it would require one referendum to Remain but two or more to Leave. Some democracy.!//
I've already rebutted this point. Firstly, it's manifestly nonsense that the Leave campaign would have faded quietly into obscurity. Of the lessons of either recent referendum have shown us anything, it's that referendums merely re-energise the debate. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that Farage would have tried to use a narrow defeat as a springboard to make further attempts to gain a foothold in Parliament. And, who knows, he might even have been successful. Counterfactual history is difficult, of course, but it is more or less certain that the Europe Question would have remained a part of UK politics for a long time, and probably a large enough part that calls to revisit the issue would never have quite died down. Leave supporters here often claim that they would have accepted the result, and I don't doubt their conviction on that, but I also don't believe for a second that people who have described EU membership as "vassalage", etc, would have been so happy to accept it for generations to come if it were truly as black as they have painted it.
* * * *
As to TTT's earlier question, "surely the result of the 2016 vote must be implemented as promised in the leaflet sent to every household." I agree that it was and still is incumbent on Parliament to try in earnest; but, equally, I don't believe that Parliament should vote through anything that had the word "Brexit" on the cover, regardless of the contents. It would just be a different version of that charge against die-hard Labour voters, ie that they'd vote through an actual goat if it wore a red rosette. Does the end goal of Brexit really justify the means? If we can only achieve Brexit by either introducing a border within our own country, or by making a decision that is certain to have damaging and lasting economic consequences, why is it so unreasonable to think again?
//Strange that it would require one referendum to Remain but two or more to Leave. Some democracy.!//
I've already rebutted this point. Firstly, it's manifestly nonsense that the Leave campaign would have faded quietly into obscurity. Of the lessons of either recent referendum have shown us anything, it's that referendums merely re-energise the debate. There is no doubt in my mind, for example, that Farage would have tried to use a narrow defeat as a springboard to make further attempts to gain a foothold in Parliament. And, who knows, he might even have been successful. Counterfactual history is difficult, of course, but it is more or less certain that the Europe Question would have remained a part of UK politics for a long time, and probably a large enough part that calls to revisit the issue would never have quite died down. Leave supporters here often claim that they would have accepted the result, and I don't doubt their conviction on that, but I also don't believe for a second that people who have described EU membership as "vassalage", etc, would have been so happy to accept it for generations to come if it were truly as black as they have painted it.
* * * *
As to TTT's earlier question, "surely the result of the 2016 vote must be implemented as promised in the leaflet sent to every household." I agree that it was and still is incumbent on Parliament to try in earnest; but, equally, I don't believe that Parliament should vote through anything that had the word "Brexit" on the cover, regardless of the contents. It would just be a different version of that charge against die-hard Labour voters, ie that they'd vote through an actual goat if it wore a red rosette. Does the end goal of Brexit really justify the means? If we can only achieve Brexit by either introducing a border within our own country, or by making a decision that is certain to have damaging and lasting economic consequences, why is it so unreasonable to think again?
On 'splitting the Union' - That process is very much in the hands of separatists in Scotland and NI at the moment. It can't be allowed to interfere with the referendum result where a clear majority voted to leave the EU.
It's not a question of 'are we in our right mind?' - we haven't had an opportunity to decide the future for Scotland or NI as independent states, but if that's the price we must pay for leaving the EU, then so be it.
It's not a question of 'are we in our right mind?' - we haven't had an opportunity to decide the future for Scotland or NI as independent states, but if that's the price we must pay for leaving the EU, then so be it.
I would vote because to allow remain to win unchallenged would be a travesty.
If there were to be another referendum you just know it would be between remain and Johnson’s deal and that in itself is another travesty.
We have already voted to leave. Therefore the only other options are leave wto or with Johnson deal.
If there were to be another referendum you just know it would be between remain and Johnson’s deal and that in itself is another travesty.
We have already voted to leave. Therefore the only other options are leave wto or with Johnson deal.
"For example, such deals represent the current best the UK can achieve in its negotiations with the EU," - rubbish, the problem is we tipped our hand from the start, we sent negotiators who too readily gave in (probably on orders from Mrs May), then we had the fifth columnists collaborating with the opposition. We never used any proper tactics, it was a sham basically. Now Bojo has trimmed a bit round it and wants to put that through, I hope that is rejected, I'd rather revoke A50 than Brino.
