UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[metisdead]

Some posts in violation of the following have been removed:

 

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

[My Thai Life]

42 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

My comment about 'certain parallels' was mainly aimed at the Irish situation.

Stupooey, you've done an excellent piece of research, and thanks again for that.

 

It included the text "In Ireland in 2008, a majority of 110,000 was blocking the Treaty of Lisbon, which had been ratified in all the other 27 nations (Croatia was not yet a member). In other words, the wishes of about 300 million were being stopped by 55,000 Irish votes."

 

Yes there may be certain parallels with the Irish situation, but I would say they are very very tenuous.

 

There are no real parallels because no-one has left the EU before, and to the best of my knowledge no major economy has left a customs union before either (though of course it's possible we won't be leaving the CU).

 

As I've said a couple of times in the last couple of days, I think the value of the imports from the major EU players into the UK, combined with the UK's budget contribution, is what's really going to sway the final stages of the negotiations.

 

Whether I'm right or wrong about that, getting through the fractures and splits in Parliament is going to constrain the final outcome anyway.

 

Obviously there are many remainers who want a second referendum. But the government has ruled this out, and the  Labour party has officially ruled this out too, and the Labour party is currently run by a natural Leaver. So the chances do look very very small. In addition to which, several remainers here have said they want 66% majority in referenda, and that they're only advisory anyway.

[Grouse]

3 hours ago, RuamRudy said:

Now I need to go and find my Dark Side of the Moon CD ?

Thought I'd something more to say...

[billd766]

8 hours ago, oilinki said:

Great sense of humour is definitely one of the best characteristics of British people. It allows the rest of us to forgive a lot of things, which British have done and are.

 

Stagnation in the past is one of the worst parts of British folks. Some people try to glorify themselves by what their grandfathers did for the country 70 years ago. That's just stupid.

 

Overall there is a sense of fairness and understanding the larger picture with Brits in general. At least by those I have interacted with and who I'm happy to have as my friends.

 

 

 

What did your grandparents do for your country 70 years ago?

 

Fight for Finland and against who or not fight?

 

Are you not proud of them for fighting to keep THEIR country?

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

What did your grandparents do for your country 70 years ago?

 

Fight for Finland and against who or not fight?

 

Are you not proud of them for fighting to keep THEIR country?

I can't claim the glory what my grandparents did. I only claim the honor what I have personally done. Same applies to all of us. That's my point.

 

But what did my grandparents do? Well, they defended our freedom from the Russian attack, naturally..and it worked ?

 

 

[melvinmelvin]

and it worked?

large parts of Finland was lost during / after the winter war,

 

but most of Finland was left intact as a "sovereign" state

 

[billd766]

15 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I can't claim the glory what my grandparents did. I only claim the honor what I have personally done. Same applies to all of us. That's my point.

 

But what did my grandparents do? Well, they defended our freedom from the Russian attack, naturally..and it worked ?

 

 

 

My Grandfather was too old and so was my Dad, both born in the late 1800s  however most of my uncles fought in WW2. Though I never fought in any war I spent 25 years in the RAF from 1960 to 1984 defending the peace.

 

Sorry but I have no "war" stories to tell.

Edited August 31, 2018 by billd766

[Guest]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

 

My Grandfather was too old and so was my Dad, both born in the late 1800s  however most of my uncles fought in WW2. Though I never fought in any war I spent 25 years in the RAF from 1960 to 1984.

 

Sorry but I have no "war" stories to tell.

Consider yourself extremely lucky. The people who have actual war stories to tell are most likely highly damaged emotionally. It's not normal behaviour to fight for a big man, killing the small men for his benefit.

 

I wouldn't want to become one and I hope the next generations don't have to become ones either.

 

What I say is that I have nothing to do what my grandparents have to do during the years of war. I can be proud of their actions, but I have no merit of my own what they did. 

 

That's why it feels so irky to hear someone, who were not put to an position that he would actually have to kill someone, innocent or not, to claim personal pride what other people did.

 

I'm against these fakes.

 

[sandyf]

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

My Grandfather was too old and so was my Dad, both born in the late 1800s  however most of my uncles fought in WW2. Though I never fought in any war I spent 25 years in the RAF from 1960 to 1984 defending the peace.

 

Sorry but I have no "war" stories to tell.

We were the lucky ones Bill, stationed in Europe as occupying forces, something that going into Europe dispensed with. Those that followed in our footsteps were not quite so fortunate. My nephew was in the convoy that was attacked by the US A10 after the ceasefire in 1991, he was 19 at the time and saw his friend from school, just 18, blown to bits. Came back from Iraq mentally disturbed, but the army did not recognise mental illness and sent him to Bosnia, he hung himself shortly after returning. It would appear the government has learned nothing from sending people to defend the peace.

There is now a crisis in mental health care and a looming crisis in elderly care but with the limited resources available the cost of brexit takes priority over the well being of the population.

[tebee]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

....

There is now a crisis in mental health care and a looming crisis in elderly care but with the limited resources available the cost of brexit takes priority over the well being of the population.

Brexit is the god that must be appeased at all costs....

[Card]

On 8/10/2018 at 6:55 AM, Bluespunk said:

Ha ha ha, love the brexiteers claiming the result of a democratic vote, means you can never have another vote on the issue. 

 

Why would you deny the people a vote on what brexit ultimately looks like?

Indeed there can be another vote but only after the results of the first one have been honored. I am a firm remainer and hate the idea of the UK leaving the EU, but upholding British democracy and the will of the people is far more important than anything the EU can offer. Parliament is sovereign in the UK and should be left to decide on whether we accept or reject the final deal. If it rejects it, then we should leave without a deal, NOT stay in. If there is to be another referendum, it should be after we have left and on rejoining, but in that case the EU there will not give any special opt-outs like Schengen, the Euro or rebates.

 

British democracy does not come cheap and it does not rely on cherry picking the final decisions.

[Stupooey]

15 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

Stupooey, you've done an excellent piece of research, and thanks again for that.

 

It included the text "In Ireland in 2008, a majority of 110,000 was blocking the Treaty of Lisbon, which had been ratified in all the other 27 nations (Croatia was not yet a member). In other words, the wishes of about 300 million were being stopped by 55,000 Irish votes."

 

Yes there may be certain parallels with the Irish situation, but I would say they are very very tenuous.

 

There are no real parallels because no-one has left the EU before, and to the best of my knowledge no major economy has left a customs union before either (though of course it's possible we won't be leaving the CU).

 

As I've said a couple of times in the last couple of days, I think the value of the imports from the major EU players into the UK, combined with the UK's budget contribution, is what's really going to sway the final stages of the negotiations.

 

Whether I'm right or wrong about that, getting through the fractures and splits in Parliament is going to constrain the final outcome anyway.

 

Obviously there are many remainers who want a second referendum. But the government has ruled this out, and the  Labour party has officially ruled this out too, and the Labour party is currently run by a natural Leaver. So the chances do look very very small. In addition to which, several remainers here have said they want 66% majority in referenda, and that they're only advisory anyway.

My "certain parallels" referred specifically to the result of the 2008 Referendum, following which it was established that a large number of 'no' voters did not fully understand what they were voting for. I have yet to be convinced that the 2016 Brexit Referendum truly reflected the wishes of the UK electorate, for reasons I have set out in previous posts. To summarise:

Because nobody actually thought the vote would pan out as it did, little thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, or whether a simple majority is sufficient for a decision of this magnitude. Misleading opinion polls (almost certainly due to the number of serial non-voters breaking the habit of a lifetime) led to many (mainly) Remain supporters to not bother to vote, thinking the result a foregone conclusion. For the same reason, many appear to have cast an anti-Government vote, and regretted it afterwards when the result was declared. I could go on...

As someone who is anti-referendum on principle - I believe them to be unconstitutional, and unless decided by a large margin one way or the other cause more problems than they solve, as we are witnessing - I am not really in favour of another. However, if it is the only way of addressing the result of a flawed vote then perhaps it is the only solution, as happened in Ireland in 2009.

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, Card said:

Indeed there can be another vote but only after the results of the first one have been honored. I am a firm remainer and hate the idea of the UK leaving the EU, but upholding British democracy and the will of the people is far more important than anything the EU can offer. Parliament is sovereign in the UK and should be left to decide on whether we accept or reject the final deal. If it rejects it, then we should leave without a deal, NOT stay in. If there is to be another referendum, it should be after we have left and on rejoining, but in that case the EU there will not give any special opt-outs like Schengen, the Euro or rebates.

 

British democracy does not come cheap and it does not rely on cherry picking the final decisions.

Nothing you say changes my view that there is no justification for denying another vote that contains a remain option. 

 

The will of the people can change. 

 

That is democracy. 

 

Denying that option is anti democratic. 

[vogie]

21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Nothing you say changes my view that there is no justification for denying another vote that contains a remain option. 

 

The will of the people can change. 

 

That is democracy. 

 

Denying that option is anti democratic. 

Are you sure about that, I can't recall you ever saying that before.?

[welovesundaysatspace]

46 minutes ago, Card said:

 the will of the people is far more important than anything the EU can offer.

So if the will of the people is to have a second referendum now, or to not leave at all, how are you upholding British democracy by denying the people their will? 

Edited September 1, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[Henryford]

1 minute ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

So if the will of the people is to have a second referendum now, or to not leave at all, how are you upholding British democracy by denying the people their will?  

How do you know what is the will of the British people, a poll of 1000 people? ALL the British people have already expressed their view on the matter.

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

So if the will of the people is to have a second referendum now, or to not leave at all, how are you upholding British democracy by denying the people their will? 

You say "if" Have you any proof that the majority of the British people want another referendum, if not your argument is baseless.

 

We have had a vote and 'we' decided to leave the European Union, nobody is denying the will of the people as their decision has not been acted on yet, it is people like you that are denying the will.

 

[tebee]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

You say "if" Have you any proof that the majority of the British people want another referendum, if not your argument is baseless.

 

We have had a vote and 'we' decided to leave the European Union, nobody is denying the will of the people as their decision has not been acted on yet, it is people like you that are denying the will.

 

Maybe we should have a referendum to decide if the people want another referendum ? That would surely be the only way of conclusively proving it ?

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, tebee said:

Maybe we should have a referendum to decide if the people want another referendum ? That would surely be the only way of conclusively proving it ?

Do you think we can fit 2 referendums in before we walk away, could even be 3,4 or even 5.

 

And we have found out since our vote to leave the Jolly Boys Club that indeed referendums are not legally binding, so what a pointless exercise that would be eh.

[welovesundaysatspace]

28 minutes ago, Henryford said:

How do you know what is the will of the British people

I don’t know. That’s why I wrote “if”. 

28 minutes ago, Henryford said:

ALL the British people

Certainly not. 

28 minutes ago, Henryford said:

have already expressed their view on the matter.

Yes, two years ago. 

[billd766]

29 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

So if the will of the people is to have a second referendum now, or to not leave at all, how are you upholding British democracy by denying the people their will? 

 

How will you know what the will of the people is?

 

Have a poll?

 

What would be the pass rate, 60%, 2/3, 75%?

 

What happens if neither side meets the pass rate?

 

What would the question (s) be and who would write them?

 

How big would the sample be, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, a million perhaps?

 

Who would select the sample of the population?

 

It is fine coming up with an idea but you need to flesh it out as well so I have given you something to think about.

 

How about we leave it to just 650 people to vote on it?

 

They are called MPs, and are elected to represent the will of the people.

[welovesundaysatspace]

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

You say "if" Have you any proof that the majority of the British people want another referendum, if not your argument is baseless.

I am not an English native speaker, but I’m pretty sure what the word “if” means. So if the will of the people is to have another referendum now, or to not leave the EU at all, how do you give the people their will? 

[welovesundaysatspace]

Just now, billd766 said:

How will you know what the will of the people is?

The same way you’re used to do it maybe? Asking them?

Just now, billd766 said:

What would be the pass rate, 60%, 2/3, 75%?

The same way you’re used to do it maybe? Simple majority?

Just now, billd766 said:

What would the question (s) be

Remain, no deal, and whatever other option is on the table at that time. 

Just now, billd766 said:

and who would write them?

I’m pretty sure there a people in tge

UK capable of writing English. Worked with the first referendum. 

 

[Stupooey]

39 minutes ago, Henryford said:

How do you know what is the will of the British people, a poll of 1000 people? ALL the British people have already expressed their view on the matter.

...and 37% of them wanted to leave. Some 'will'.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I am not an English native speaker, but I’m pretty sure what the word “if” means. So if the will of the people is to have another referendum now, or to not leave the EU at all, how do you give the people their will? 

'If' doesn't mean anything. 

If the will of the people do not want another referendum, then we won't bother.

[billd766]

13 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The same way you’re used to do it maybe? Asking them?

The same way you’re used to do it maybe? Simple majority?

Remain, no deal, and whatever other option is on the table at that time. 

I’m pretty sure there a people in tge

UK capable of writing English. Worked with the first referendum. 

 

 

You missed these though.

 

What happens if neither side meets the pass rate?

 

What would the question (s) be and who would write them?

 

How big would the sample be, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, a million perhaps?

 

Who would select the sample of the population?

 

It is fine coming up with an idea but you need to flesh it out as well so I have given you something to think about.

 

How about we leave it to just 650 people to vote on it?

 

They are called MPs, and are elected to represent the will of the people.

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

...and 37% of them wanted to leave. Some 'will'.

Still more than the 34% that voted to remain, which ever way you wish to spin it, more Brits voted out.

[Stupooey]

29 minutes ago, vogie said:

Still more than the 34% that voted to remain, which ever way you wish to spin it, more Brits voted out.

...and 29 per cent were not sufficiently motivated to make the effort to vote, which implies that they were happy with the status quo. It is a lot easier to spur people into action to vote against something. Just look at the June protest marches in London where 100,000 turned out in favour of Remain (I.e. To engineer change) whereas only 'hundreds' joined the Leave rally (I.e. To maintain the status quo).perhaps voting in the Referendum should have been compulsory, as in Australia for example, since unlike in a General Election 'none of the above' was not really an option.

[SheungWan]

2 hours ago, Card said:

Indeed there can be another vote but only after the results of the first one have been honored. I am a firm remainer and hate the idea of the UK leaving the EU, but upholding British democracy and the will of the people is far more important than anything the EU can offer. Parliament is sovereign in the UK and should be left to decide on whether we accept or reject the final deal. If it rejects it, then we should leave without a deal, NOT stay in. If there is to be another referendum, it should be after we have left and on rejoining, but in that case the EU there will not give any special opt-outs like Schengen, the Euro or rebates.

 

British democracy does not come cheap and it does not rely on cherry picking the final decisions.

Except the above logic is cherry picking, so can be discarded. Parliament is sovereign. Full stop.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

How will you know what the will of the people is?

 

Have a poll?

 

What would be the pass rate, 60%, 2/3, 75%?

 

What happens if neither side meets the pass rate?

 

What would the question (s) be and who would write them?

 

How big would the sample be, 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, a million perhaps?

 

Who would select the sample of the population?

 

It is fine coming up with an idea but you need to flesh it out as well so I have given you something to think about.

 

How about we leave it to just 650 people to vote on it?

 

They are called MPs, and are elected to represent the will of the people.

Parliament should decide and the decision should be ratified by a referendum with a super majority 

 

otherwise the status quo ante remains.

 

To my mind, that satisfies everything.