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

[My Thai Life]

It’s easy to assess some of the negative economic consequences of leaving. But it’s not easy to assess the positive consequences because there is no agreement on what the future relationship will be, and of course there’s no knowing which UK political party will be in charge nor under whose leadership.

 

We’ve heard reams and reams about why voting leave is silly. But voting to remain is voting for an undefined “ever closer union”. No remain voters can possibly know what they were voting for, as it has never been defined.

 

And there has never been continuity in the UK government stance on the UK’s position regarding the EU either: from Blair’s UK-at-heart-of-the-EU, to Cameron’s different-speeds, to someone else’s (I can’t remember who at the moment) different-destinations.

 

The EU Is still increasing its budgets, despite the fact that it has forced some EU member states into austerity. Fair? The EU is not able to formulate an agreed policy on refugees, and the brunt of the problem (as far as it relates to the EU) is left with Mediterranean countries, especially Greece, which has already been screwed by the EU troika. Fair?

 

Talking of refugees into the EU. If Turkey reasonably decides that it is no longer going to honour its side of the bargain, because the EU has failed to honour its side, then EU stability and solidarity (such as it is) will be hammered. That will change the shape of the EU debate substantially, and not just UK-EU.

 

Without the UK’s contribution to the EU budget, either the EU cuts its spending plans (no evidence so far that it will), or other member states will have to pay more. At some point German workers are going to baulk at this. At that point the EU project is dead.

 

Speaking as a British European who has worked all over Europe, inside and outside of the EU, I find this situation pretty painful. I think my ideal scenario would be that the EU realises reforms are necessary, and gives some indication that it will flex its “red lines”.

 

Got to go, I think I see a pig flying past my window.

[whatsupdoc]

7 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

 

It’s easy to assess some of the negative economic consequences of leaving. But it’s not easy to assess the positive consequences because there is no agreement on what the future relationship will be, and of course there’s no knowing which UK political party will be in charge nor under whose leadership.

 

We’ve heard reams and reams about why voting leave is silly. But voting to remain is voting for an undefined “ever closer union”. No remain voters can possibly know what they were voting for, as it has never been defined.

 

And there has never been continuity in the UK government stance on the UK’s position regarding the EU either: from Blair’s UK-at-heart-of-the-EU, to Cameron’s different-speeds, to someone else’s (I can’t remember who at the moment) different-destinations.

 

The EU Is still increasing its budgets, despite the fact that it has forced some EU member states into austerity. Fair? The EU is not able to formulate an agreed policy on refugees, and the brunt of the problem (as far as it relates to the EU) is left with Mediterranean countries, especially Greece, which has already been screwed by the EU troika. Fair?

 

Talking of refugees into the EU. If Turkey reasonably decides that it is no longer going to honour its side of the bargain, because the EU has failed to honour its side, then EU stability and solidarity (such as it is) will be hammered. That will change the shape of the EU debate substantially, and not just UK-EU.

 

Without the UK’s contribution to the EU budget, either the EU cuts its spending plans (no evidence so far that it will), or other member states will have to pay more. At some point German workers are going to baulk at this. At that point the EU project is dead.

 

Speaking as a British European who has worked all over Europe, inside and outside of the EU, I find this situation pretty painful. I think my ideal scenario would be that the EU realises reforms are necessary, and gives some indication that it will flex its “red lines”.

 

Got to go, I think I see a pig flying past my window.

What amazes me is that many leavers complain that the EU is not perfect... 

Nobody ever said it is and obviously it cannot easily solve the big problems in this world. What do you expect?

 

The point is that being a part of the EU is beneficial to its member countries. But for some reason leavers are obsessed with Germany. They often say Germany is the only country that benefits (nonsense) and at the same time they say that Germany has to pay too much into the budget. Which one is it?

The answer is that the EU is not a zero sum game. A higher prosperity for the poorer countries benefits the richer ones as well because it brings more business opportunities.

 

The EU is held together by a lot of treaties and rules. Every country has to agree to these treaties and rules and that is why they cannot be easily changed. But it is not impossible as long as it benefits the members.

 

If the UK (or any other country for that matter) doesn't see the benefits, then fine, leave. The EU will not collapse after Brexit, it will however lose some strength. And the UK? It will find out what it is to be a relatively small country, not part of a larger and stronger bloc. But hey, the UK will be sovereign (whatever that really means in this global world).

[kwilco]

52 minutes ago, nauseus said:

What is sad is that it seems you have no idea what I'm talking about.

Carry on with your make-believe if it makes you feel better.  

Yet another Brexiteer comment devoid of any content.

...one thing we have in common appears to be we both have no idea what you're talking aboutabout.

Edited August 19, 2018 by kwilco

[sandyf]

18 hours ago, vogie said:

I hope this well written piece will help to dilute some of the remainers arrogance.

 

"The fractures in society are not inevitable. But healing them does require that all citizens, whatever age, whatever educational background, whatever way they voted in the referendum, stop caricaturing their fellow voters and instead seize the moment and take on the challenges of Brexit as a positive opportunity to build a new society. If we can overcome these fractures, the future is ours to shape. 

 

https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/claire-fox/it-s-time-for-remainers-to-stop-caricaturing-leave-voters-as-stupid-dupes

The brexit "fractures" are everywhere and no more so than in the UK government.

Maybe you can explain to us which "positive opportunities" the various parts of the UK government are trying to seize.

[sandyf]

14 hours ago, bannork said:

 

And the common denominator being Belfast. The Belfast Agreement is a hole in brexit below the waterline.

[david555]

20 minutes ago, sandyf said:

And the common denominator being Belfast. The Belfast Agreement is a hole in brexit below the waterline.

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2018/aug/18/titanic-success-viral-video-satirising-brexit-10m-views

Yet political satire still has its place – a fact that was underlined last week when an online comedy short sending up Brexit became a viral hit, racking up more than 10 million views. 

[vogie]

23 minutes ago, sandyf said:

The brexit "fractures" are everywhere and no more so than in the UK government.

Maybe you can explain to us which "positive opportunities" the various parts of the UK government are trying to seize.

And these fractures need to be repaired, but they won't be repaired by dwelling on the past, the government has an extremely hard job to do, no more so than Mrs May. And there lies the problem if only half of the government are backing her and only half the country is backing her, she is between the devil and the deep blue sea, she is a remainer at heart after all.

At the end of the day the majority of the country voted to leave the EU and that must be respected, we know that the minority are not happy with this, but there again Mrs May appears to be trying to please everybody, and it is very apparent she is pleasing no-one at the moment.

Sandy I respect your opinions, but leavers have their reasons to leave, just as the remainers have their reasons to stay, and the views of both are very different, all of which have been discussed on numerous occasions on the various brexit threads.

It would appear that the remainers like to blame the UK for everything, I have never read a post where the remainers put any onus on the EU, if the EU had been run fairer and remained a trading partner rather than a machine that wants to control all of Europe I very much doubt that the UK would be leaving. 

[Stupooey]

39 minutes ago, vogie said:

It would appear that the remainers like to blame the UK for everything, I have never read a post where the remainers put any onus on the EU, if the EU had been run fairer and remained a trading partner rather than a machine that wants to control all of Europe I very much doubt that the UK would be leaving. 

As a Remainer, I would take issue with this statement (no surprise there, then). I and many others have admitted the EU has many faults, but I believe that your apportioning blame conclusion has it the wrong way round. In a previous post I suggested that a major reason the vote was so different in Scotland (62-38 pro-Remain) was down to the existence of a Scottish Parliament. Because of this, Scots realise that the main decisions that affect their day-to-day lives are made within the UK and not in Brussels. People in the disadvantaged regions of England, on the other hand, who feel more alienated from their own Government, have been persuaded that their woes emanate from Brussels rather than Westminster. I am convinced that if the North of England, for example, had their own regional parliament their voting patterns would have been very different.

As for your statement that the EU is a machine, like any other machine it is a combination of its constituent parts; if one part breaks down the machine stops. The parts control the machine, not the other way round. This is why the EU cannot make any major decisions without the agreement of all 28 members, and why it could never 'control' Europe as you suggest (despite Juncker's occasional 'flight of fancy' pronouncements).

 

 

 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by Stupooey
Spelling mistake

[tebee]

48 minutes ago, vogie said:

And these fractures need to be repaired, but they won't be repaired by dwelling on the past, the government has an extremely hard job to do, no more so than Mrs May. And there lies the problem if only half of the government are backing her and only half the country is backing her, she is between the devil and the deep blue sea, she is a remainer at heart after all.

At the end of the day the majority of the country voted to leave the EU and that must be respected, we know that the minority are not happy with this, but there again Mrs May appears to be trying to please everybody, and it is very apparent she is pleasing no-one at the moment.

Sandy I respect your opinions, but leavers have their reasons to leave, just as the remainers have their reasons to stay, and the views of both are very different, all of which have been discussed on numerous occasions on the various brexit threads.

It would appear that the remainers like to blame the UK for everything, I have never read a post where the remainers put any onus on the EU, if the EU had been run fairer and remained a trading partner rather than a machine that wants to control all of Europe I very much doubt that the UK would be leaving. 

It doesn't have to be respected - that is why we have a representative democracy, to stop us from taking stupid decisions.  

[tebee]

    

 

Show of hands time: how many of us have been at a strategic planning meeting with managers so senior that the company is better off with them never leaving the golf club and whose idea of a "plan" is to announce a 12% annual sales growth target? Naturally, all the details on how to achieve the "plan" is left to those below.

 

The Brexit Brigade exhibits the same leadership and forward-thinking talent, with the same attention to detail. The inevitable outcome of such an approach is self-evident.
 

[stephenterry]

15 hours ago, vogie said:

Jeez, it was a joke, don't you think the leavers have taken enough stick already, I was beginning to think we'd lost the referendum.

Keep reinforcing that belief as it will cause less pain.  

[stephenterry]

15 hours ago, aright said:

Are the remainers not UK citizens? Remainers are the enemies of the UK?

 

Of course Remainers are UK citizens but they are other things as well which Nigel covers...….

 

"They refuse to acknowledge the wishes of the majority of those who took part in that historic plebiscite of 2016 by voting to leave the European Union. As far as I’m concerned, this is the worst case of Stockholm syndrome ever recorded."

And so what? Does that mean that the UK should bankrupt the economy, become a third world trade country, devalue the pound to parity with the dollar, just to respect a referendum result held over two years ago, and which has proven impossible to achieve by May's government as of today? 

 

BTW, I'm neither a Remainer or Leaver- but have the common sense to realise that Brexit is just not working as it was promised to enrich the UK populus by both the leave camp and May's government. That's the reality and actuality not some long-held belief.

[mommysboy]

12 hours ago, candide said:

I don't know which options leavers have in mind. It is up to them to articulate these options. I merely stated a basic economic fact: no big country is a tax haven because it is not a viable option for them, only for small countries. But I agree that a hard Brexit will probably result in lower taxes in order to cope with global competition resulting from multiple free trade deals.

 

Imo, I have no doubt the U.K. will recover from a recession. However I doubt that the economic model which will emerge from it will satisfy the anti-globalists and the people who currently feel they are left behind.

I feel you are spot on in this assessment.

[mommysboy]

17 minutes ago, tebee said:

    

 

Show of hands time: how many of us have been at a strategic planning meeting with managers so senior that the company is better off with them never leaving the golf club and whose idea of a "plan" is to announce a 12% annual sales growth target? Naturally, all the details on how to achieve the "plan" is left to those below.

 

The Brexit Brigade exhibits the same leadership and forward-thinking talent, with the same attention to detail. The inevitable outcome of such an approach is self-evident.
 

Any Board of any noted organization would undoubtedly vote to shelve an idea that was ill formed, ill defined, and overly expensive -as a matter of sanity and job preservation.  End of, period, full stop.

 

For that matter, I rather suspect any normal family would come to the same conclusion regarding a similar domestic matter.

 

 

 

 

[citybiker]

It doesn't have to be respected - that is why we have a representative democracy, to stop us from taking stupid decisions.  

Failure to respect is also failure to allow democracy to continue.

Only remainers & anti Brexit campaigners believe the vote doesn’t have to be respected, so 17 M made a stupid decision?

Bizarre & utter ridiculous statement to make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[My Thai Life]

3 hours ago, whatsupdoc said:

What amazes me is that many leavers complain that the EU is not perfect... 

Nobody ever said it is and obviously it cannot easily solve the big problems in this world. What do you expect?

 

The point is that being a part of the EU is beneficial to its member countries. But for some reason leavers are obsessed with Germany.

I am not a leaver, or a remainer. And neither am I obsessed with Germany. But I'll make my point again as you appear to have completely missed it. If German workers get tired of paying into the EU, or for any other reason Germany leaves, the EU is dead. The EU depends for its existence on less than a handful of real payers and players, and the UK was one of those. And I'm not just talking about economic existence.

 

The same is possibly true if France left. Spain or Italy leaving would create a big blip. Most of the rest wouldn't be noticed, other than the fact there would be more money in the kitty.

 

 

Edited August 19, 2018 by My Thai Life

[My Thai Life]

This forum is obviously blessed with a large number of remainers with MBAs in international trade and finance.

 

It's a shame they never published their wisdom before the referendum. That would have been the time to influence the outcome.

[Stupooey]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I am not a leaver, or a remainer. And neither am I obsessed with Germany. But I'll make my point again as you appear to have completely missed it. If German workers get tired of paying into the EU, or for any other reason Germany leaves, the EU is dead. The EU depends for its existence on less than a handful of real payers, and the UK was one of those players. And I'm not just talking abut economic existence.

 

The same is possiblyy true if France left. Spain or Italy leaving would create a big blip. Most of the rest wouldn't be noticed, other than the fact there woul be more money in the kitty.

 

 

If you are not a leaver or remainer, what are you? What's the third option? Divide into the United Kingdom of England and Wales (outside the EU) and the United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland (inside)? Come to think of it that might be the solution - it certainly solves the Irish problem!

Edited August 19, 2018 by Stupooey
Spelling mistake

[tebee]

8 minutes ago, citybiker said:

 

Failure to respect is also failure to allow democracy to continue.

Only remainers & anti Brexit campaigners believe the vote doesn’t have to be respected, so 17 M made a stupid decision?

Bizarre & utter ridiculous statement to make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

No it's not - we have a representative democracy precisely because we  realize most people don't understand the complexities of political negotiations and it's unfair to ask people to make life changing decisions about things they don't understand . It is however fair to ask their opinions. 

 

This is why British referendums are alway advisory.

 

So not following the  vote, because things have arisen that were not clear when the people voted, is precisely how British democracy is supposed to work. 

[whatsupdoc]

13 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I am not a leaver, or a remainer. And neither am I obsessed with Germany. But I'll make my point again as you appear to have completely missed it. If German workers get tired of paying into the EU, or for any other reason Germany leaves, the EU is dead. The EU depends for its existence on less than a handful of real payers and players, and the UK was one of those. And I'm not just talking about economic existence.

 

The same is possibly true if France left. Spain or Italy leaving would create a big blip. Most of the rest wouldn't be noticed, other than the fact there would be more money in the kitty.

 

 

And you missed my point that there is a synergy between the members. Together they are stronger.

If there ever was a rift in the EU it might lead to a strong northern zone and a weaker southern one, but that is about the worst case scenario.

Germany would never leave to be on its own like the UK.

 

And I find it really arrogant to state that countries like Belgium, the Netherlands or Finland don't matter much. If the EU only consisted of your 'real players' it wouldn't hold. The big countries tend to have bigger ego's (the UK being a prime example), the smaller countries are vital to keep everything together.

[dick dasterdly]

48 minutes ago, tebee said:

It doesn't have to be respected - that is why we have a representative democracy, to stop us from taking stupid decisions.  

 

And yet the politicians you trust so much to make intelligent decisions, decided a referendum on the issue was finally necessary/unavoidable.....  For political reasons....

 

 

3 minutes ago, tebee said:

No it's not - we have a representative democracy precisely because we  realize most people don't understand the complexities of political negotiations and it's unfair to ask people to make life changing decisions about things they don't understand . It is however fair to ask their opinions. 

 

This is why British referendums are alway advisory.

 

So not following the  vote, because things have arisen that were not clear when the people voted, is precisely how British democracy is supposed to work. 

I've no idea why you think the majority of MPs "understand" the complexities any better than the ordinary, fairly intelligent voter.

 

And please.... there should be no reason to go through (yet again) the fact that the govt. spent millions of pounds sending a leaflet to every household explaining why they believed the uk should 'remain' - which stated that they would act according to the result of the referendum.

 

Legally, all referendums may be 'advisory' - but when the govt. makes it very clear (in writing, to the entire population) that they will enact the result of the referendum - I suspect the legal position may not be quite as clear-cut as you are suggesting.

 

Having stated the above, it would be political suicide to pretend that they only intended for the referendum to be advisory!

[dick dasterdly]

23 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

If you are not a leaver or remainer, what are you? What's the third option? Divide into the United Kingdom of England and Wales (outside the EU) and the United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland (inside)? Come to think of it that might be the solution - it certainly solves the Irish problem!

Obviously I can't speak for My Thai Life, but at the time I'd hoped that as a result of the uk referendum result, the eu would realise it was time to recognise (and more importantly) reform the most disliked aspects of the eu.

 

This would have providing a very good reason for another referendum on the subject - i.e. the eu had realised it's faults, and reformed.

 

Unfortunately, the opposite happened....

[Chomper Higgot]

5 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

And yet the politicians you trust so much to make intelligent decisions, decided a referendum on the issue was finally necessary/unavoidable.....  For political reasons....

 

 

I've no idea why you think the majority of MPs "understand" the complexities any better than the ordinary, fairly intelligent voter.

 

And please.... there should be no reason to go through (yet again) the fact that the govt. spent millions of pounds sending a leaflet to every household explaining why they believed the uk should 'remain' - which stated that they would act according to the result of the referendum.

 

Legally, all referendums may be 'advisory' - but when the govt. makes it very clear (in writing, to the entire population) that they will enact the result of the referendum - I suspect the legal position may not be quite as clear-cut as you are suggesting.

 

Having stated the above, it would be political suicide to pretend that they only intended for the referendum to be advisory!

“And yet the politicians you trust so much to make intelligent decisions, decided a referendum on the issue was finally necessary/unavoidable.....  For political reasons”

 

Apart from it was not all ‘politicians’ it was the Tories and in particular the ‘farm animal fancier’ Cameron.

 

A very Tory problem.

 

”Having stated the above, it would be political suicide to pretend that they only intended for the referendum to be advisory!”

 

It’s only political suicide if it does not have the support of the majority of voters.

 

Deciding it’s time to stop letting the tail wag the dog is politically smart, especially when facing the economic disaster of ‘no deal’.

[stephenterry]

15 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

This forum is obviously blessed with a large number of remainers with MBAs in international trade and finance.

 

It's a shame they never published their wisdom before the referendum. That would have been the time to influence the outcome.

For more wisdom, let's quote some statistical figures from the referendum vote:

 

1. Total electorate. 46,500,001 

2. Total voters.        33,573,000

2. Remain.                16,141,241 

3. Leave.                   17,410,742 

 

The 'respect the referendum vote' was based on - and still is for Leavers - adhering to the declared wishes of 37.44% of the total electoral population. That's factual.

 

Whether or not people didn't vote for whatever reason, it's a fact that it is a significant minority of the population who voted to leave the EU as at June 2016. To carry that through to current times, with the disaster of May's government to implement Brexit over 2 years later, is most likely not what any reasonable citizen would want to happen.   

 

The same could be said about UK elections, but the magnitude of the effects of Brexit on the whole of the UK (and the EU) far exceeds whether the Tory or Labour party become the next UK government (as their ineptitudes are apparent). Therefore it is right and proper for every citizen  - Remainer or Leaver - to question whether respecting a minority viewpoint two years ago is now the best way forward for the UK.

 

As far as the International trade and finance issues, I suggest readers view the appropriate information sources, e.g. Financial Times, and Economist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chang50]

Why not a 3rd referendum,my wishes as expressed in the winning vote of the 1975 one were deemed temporary.Why should the 2nd one in 2016 be different?

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, stephenterry said:

For more wisdom, let's quote some statistical figures from the referendum vote:

 

1. Total electorate. 46,500,001 

2. Total voters.        33,573,000

2. Remain.                16,141,241 

3. Leave.                   17,410,742 

 

The 'respect the referendum vote' was based on - and still is for Leavers - adhering to the declared wishes of 37.44% of the total electoral population. That's factual.

 

Whether or not people didn't vote for whatever reason, it's a fact that it is a significant minority of the population who voted to leave the EU as at June 2016. To carry that through to current times, with the disaster of May's government to implement Brexit over 2 years later, is most likely not what any reasonable citizen would want to happen.   

 

The same could be said about UK elections, but the magnitude of the effects of Brexit on the whole of the UK (and the EU) far exceeds whether the Tory or Labour party become the next UK government (as their ineptitudes are apparent). Therefore it is right and proper for every citizen  - Remainer or Leaver - to question whether respecting a minority viewpoint two years ago is now the best way forward for the UK.

 

As far as the International trade and finance issues, I suggest readers view the appropriate information sources, e.g. Financial Times, and Economist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you point out, he same argument applies to GEs. - but you miss the point that those who didn't vote (a far larger proportion than in the referendum) and those that voted for the party that lost - accepted the result and didn't try to get it changed after the event.

[dick dasterdly]

2 minutes ago, chang50 said:

Why not a 3rd referendum,my wishes as expressed in the winning vote of the 1975 one were deemed temporary.Why should the 2nd one in 2016 be different?

Agree entirely - it took 40 odd years for your wishes to be changed.

 

Do you think that "the winning vote" in this referendum should wait equally as long for the next referendum on the subject? 

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

For more wisdom, let's quote some statistical figures from the referendum vote:

 

1. Total electorate. 46,500,001 

2. Total voters.        33,573,000

2. Remain.                16,141,241 

3. Leave.                   17,410,742 

 

The 'respect the referendum vote' was based on - and still is for Leavers - adhering to the declared wishes of 37.44% of the total electoral population. That's factual.

 

Whether or not people didn't vote for whatever reason, it's a fact that it is a significant minority of the population who voted to leave the EU as at June 2016. To carry that through to current times, with the disaster of May's government to implement Brexit over 2 years later, is most likely not what any reasonable citizen would want to happen.   

 

The same could be said about UK elections, but the magnitude of the effects of Brexit on the whole of the UK (and the EU) far exceeds whether the Tory or Labour party become the next UK government (as their ineptitudes are apparent). Therefore it is right and proper for every citizen  - Remainer or Leaver - to question whether respecting a minority viewpoint two years ago is now the best way forward for the UK.

 

As far as the International trade and finance issues, I suggest readers view the appropriate information sources, e.g. Financial Times, and Economist.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/08/18/as-brexit-day-nears-sterling-is-once-again-in-for-a-rocky-ride

 

A limited number of articles are free if you just register.

[stephenterry]

1 minute ago, chang50 said:

Why not a 3rd referendum,my wishes as expressed in the winning vote of the 1975 one were deemed temporary.Why should the 2nd one in 2016 be different?

There are a number of reasons: 2018 is a whole new ball-park with more informative facts available, albeit voters are unlikely to change their beliefs from those held in 2016, until Brexit is enacted.

 

Why?

 

All humans are driven by two critical emotions - avoiding pain and gaining pleasure. Voters are not feeling any more pain than currently - changing that depends on their beliefs, whether Brexit will lessen their pain or increase it. Leavers feel that the opportunities offered by exiting the EU would be beneficial to them, therefore pleasuring them (or lessening the pain), and remainers feel the opposite.

 

Trying to change the beliefs of others is not possible unless the fundamental emotions are acknowledged and the pain and pleasures of others are understood.

 

It's really up to the government and parliament to ease the UK into a better position, not a people's referendum. Whether any government is capable of doing that is questionable, and based on current political rifts across all parties and at all levels, improbable in my lifetime.

 

 

 

[Stupooey]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely - it took 40 odd years for your wishes to be changed.

 

Do you think that "the winning vote" in this referendum should wait equally as long for the next referendum on the subject? 

Logically the length of the wait should be proportional to the size of the win, on the - admittedly hypothetical - basis that people will change their minds at a consistent rate. In this case the wait would be (52-48)/(67- 33) x 41 = 4 years 10 months. Another referendum in April 2011 then.

(Just being flippant, I'm anti-referendum full stop, although it might have to take one to correct one as happened in Ireland in 2008/09).