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

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

...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.

Do you actually believe what you post, nothing implies that the people that didn't vote were happy with the "status quo", if people cannot be bothered voting (for what ever reasons), personally I think the people that didn't vote knew that more people would vote out so they didn't bother turning up, just as rediculous as your offering.

 

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

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.

I agree to a certain extent -  apart from your view that "otherwise the status quo ante remains.".

 

My opinion on this is entirely the opposite!

 

i.e. If there isn't a super majority referendum result that agrees with the politicians' decision on the final deal - then the uk has to leave with no deal.

 

The referendum result was to leave - and if politicians are unable to come up with a deal that is able to command a super majority amongst the electorate, there is no reason to back-track from the original referendum result.

Edited September 1, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, vogie said:

Do you actually believe what you post, nothing implies that the people that didn't vote were happy with the "status quo", if people cannot be bothered voting (for what ever reasons), personally I think the people that didn't vote knew that more people would vote out so they didn't bother turning up, just as rediculous as your offering.

 

I suppose your opinion would make some sort of sense if it wasn't for that inconvenient word, facts. I gave you a classic example of how people are much more likely to take action against something they disagree with, as opposed to supporting the existing situation, but you chose to ignore that. In addition, almost every opinion poll leading up to the Referendum showed a comfortable lead for Remain (for reasons I have already explained in a previous post), so your argument that people "knew" that the vote was going to go the other way just doesn't hold water. To add to that, every survey I have seen asking people who didn't vote which way they would have gone has shown a significant majority for Remain. If you know of any others showing the opposite, please enlighten us. Lastly, in an earlier post I asked if any Leavers actually thought in advance that they were going to gain the majority vote, but none were prepared to admit it. To my mind, the vote went the way it did because of (rather than despite) nobody believing it would happen, which led to a result which did not truly reflect the opinion of the people.

 

Edited September 1, 2018 by Stupooey
Spelling error

[Jip99]

7 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I suppose your opinion would make some sort of sense if it wasn't for that inconvenient word, facts. I gave you a classic example of how people are much more likely to take action against something they disagree with, as opposed to supporting the existing situation, but you chose to ignore that. In addition, almost every opinion poll leading up to the Referendum showed a comfortable lead for Remain (for reasons I have already explained in a previous post), so your argument that people "knew" that the vote was going to go the other way just doesn't hold water. To add to that, every survey I have seen asking people who didn't vote which way they would have gone has shown a significant majority for Remain. If you know of any others showing the opposite, please enlighten us. Lastly, in an earlier post I asked if any Leavers actually thought in advance that they were going to gain the majority vote, but none were prepared to admit it. To my mind, the vote went the way it did because of (rather than despite) nobody believing it would happen, which led to a result which did not truly reflect the opinion of the people.

 

 

 

Obtuse thinking at it's best.

 

Cameron said vote In or Out.

 

If anyone of either persuasion chose not to vote............... som nom nar.

 

I voted - good job I didn't take notice of the polls - and the bookies - and think "no point in voting because it is a cast iron remain win"...... oh no, siree, I exercised my democratic right - and obligation - to vote for what I believed in.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Jip99

[transam]

9 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

I suppose your opinion would make some sort of sense if it wasn't for that inconvenient word, facts. I gave you a classic example of how people are much more likely to take action against something they disagree with, as opposed to supporting the existing situation, but you chose to ignore that. In addition, almost every opinion poll leading up to the Referendum showed a comfortable lead for Remain (for reasons I have already explained in a previous post), so your argument that people "knew" that the vote was going to go the other way just doesn't hold water. To add to that, every survey I have seen asking people who didn't vote which way they would have gone has shown a significant majority for Remain. If you know of any others showing the opposite, please enlighten us. Lastly, in an earlier post I asked if any Leavers actually thought in advance that they were going to gain the majority vote, but none were prepared to admit it. To my mind, the vote went the way it did because of (rather than despite) nobody believing it would happen, which led to a result which did not truly reflect the opinion of the people.

 

?...and l suppose the leave folk just did for a laugh...?

[Stupooey]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

?...and l suppose the leave folk just did for a laugh...?

No, I never said that. I'm sure the 37 per cent of the electorate who voted to leave were very sincere, and I respect that. I just don't believe that it is a sufficient mandate to create the chaos we are seeing at the moment, which I believe will only get worse.

[transam]

3 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

No, I never said that. I'm sure the 37 per cent of the electorate who voted to leave were very sincere, and I respect that. I just don't believe that it is a sufficient mandate to create the chaos we are seeing at the moment, which I believe will only get worse.

Well anyone, including the UK gov, thought Brexit would be a breeze are daft...And anyone that wants the UK gov to buckle under to foreign threats over Brexit have no balls..

[Stupooey]

15 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Obtuse thinking at it's best.

 

Cameron said vote In or Out.

 

If anyone of either persuasion chose not to vote............... som nom nar.

 

I voted - good job I didn't take notice of the polls - and the bookies - and think "no point in voting because it is a cast iron remain win"...... oh no, siree, I exercised my democratic right - and obligation - to vote for what I believed in.

Cameron...oh yes, I remember him. Fled to the hills once he realised his misplaced optimism had landed the nation in a situation they didn't really want. Good job we have a different Government now, so none of his misguided 'promises' have any relevance.

Incidentally, I chose not to vote as I am a pensioner with no plans to return to live in the UK, so I felt I had no moral right to help decide the long term future of the country. That doesn't mean I can't have an opinion as I suffer the consequences of the outcome.

[Stupooey]

24 minutes ago, transam said:

Well anyone, including the UK gov, thought Brexit would be a breeze are daft...And anyone that wants the UK gov to buckle under to foreign threats over Brexit have no balls..

I think the people who you say are daft include a significant proportion of those who voted for this omnishambles. Did the Express, Mail and Sun ever tell them it would be anything other than easy? 

One against twenty seven? Even the Light Brigade faced better odds! The UK was never going to win, it's just a matter of damage limitation and how few they can manage to lose by.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Stupooey
Removing inappropriate capital letter

[kwilco]

in any normal democracy a vote of such constitutional enormity would require a super majority.....In any normal democracy it is the god-given right to oppose anything that we don't agree with as well....an d that will continue until Brexit is reversed

[vogie]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

I suppose your opinion would make some sort of sense if it wasn't for that inconvenient word, facts. I gave you a classic example of how people are much more likely to take action against something they disagree with, as opposed to supporting the existing situation, but you chose to ignore that. In addition, almost every opinion poll leading up to the Referendum showed a comfortable lead for Remain (for reasons I have already explained in a previous post), so your argument that people "knew" that the vote was going to go the other way just doesn't hold water. To add to that, every survey I have seen asking people who didn't vote which way they would have gone has shown a significant majority for Remain. If you know of any others showing the opposite, please enlighten us. Lastly, in an earlier post I asked if any Leavers actually thought in advance that they were going to gain the majority vote, but none were prepared to admit it. To my mind, the vote went the way it did because of (rather than despite) nobody believing it would happen, which led to a result which did not truly reflect the opinion of the people.

 

And if you think that you know and have proof that people stayed away and didn't vote because they thought they were going to win, well my name might be Tim but I'm not dim. Just because you think it, that does not make it so. 

I am not bothered about opinion polls, lets stick to your favourite word, facts. My remark in my last post was a stupid counter argument againgst your statement about people staying away because they thought they were going to win.........perleeeeeaase, give us some credit.

We know you are dissappointed about the outcome, you are not alone, there are many more, but at the end of the day we are all going to have to wait and see what's in store for us, nobody knows.

Just imagine being a winner and have to take this flak on a daily basis, the sooner we leave the better.

[aright]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

in any normal democracy a vote of such constitutional enormity would require a super majority.....In any normal democracy it is the god-given right to oppose anything that we don't agree with as well....an d that will continue until Brexit is reversed

I can only find one definition of democracy...…. "Government by all the people direct or representative" and that's what happened the people voted to leave the EU and the people's parliamentary representatives overwhelming voted to trigger Article 50. What's the dictionary definition of a normal democracy....I can't find it.

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

Cameron...oh yes, I remember him. Fled to the hills once he realised his misplaced optimism had landed the nation in a situation they didn't really want. Good job we have a different Government now, so none of his misguided 'promises' have any relevance.

I can't really agree with the last sentence. This wasn't a General Election where the electorate approve a specific mandate for a couple years. It was a one off decision, and everyone agreed to those terms before the vote. I haven't seen see any evidence in The Guardian or BBC (or anywhere else) to support the idea that the promise is now irrelevant.

[adammike]

7 minutes ago, aright said:

I can only find one definition of democracy...…. "Government by all the people direct or representative" and that's what happened the people voted to leave the EU and the people's parliamentary representatives overwhelming voted to trigger Article 50. What's the dictionary definition of a normal democracy....I can't find it.

It's no good looking in a dictionary democracy is in your head, or not if you are a brexiteer.we remainers shall never surrender we shall fight you ...............you know.

[adammike]

33 minutes ago, vogie said:

And if you think that you know and have proof that people stayed away and didn't vote because they thought they were going to win, well my name might be Tim but I'm not dim. Just because you think it, that does not make it so. 

I am not bothered about opinion polls, lets stick to your favourite word, facts. My remark in my last post was a stupid counter argument againgst your statement about people staying away because they thought they were going to win.........perleeeeeaase, give us some credit.

We know you are dissappointed about the outcome, you are not alone, there are many more, but at the end of the day we are all going to have to wait and see what's in store for us, nobody knows.

Just imagine being a winner and have to take this flak on a daily basis, the sooner we leave the better.

It was pissing down with rain .

[vogie]

3 minutes ago, adammike said:

It was pissing down with rain .

Well that makes more sense than, I thought 39% wasn't motivated enough to turn out, and they were all remainers. ???

[aright]

10 minutes ago, adammike said:

It's no good looking in a dictionary democracy is in your head, or not if you are a brexiteer.we remainers shall never surrender we shall fight you ...............you know.

Best have a dictionary definition. Head definitions can be psychotic …...the expression "Head Case" exists for a reason. 

[Stupooey]

42 minutes ago, vogie said:

And if you think that you know and have proof that people stayed away and didn't vote because they thought they were going to win, well my name might be Tim but I'm not dim. Just because you think it, that does not make it so. 

I am not bothered about opinion polls, lets stick to your favourite word, facts. My remark in my last post was a stupid counter argument againgst your statement about people staying away because they thought they were going to win.........perleeeeeaase, give us some credit.

We know you are dissappointed about the outcome, you are not alone, there are many more, but at the end of the day we are all going to have to wait and see what's in store for us, nobody knows.

Just imagine being a winner and have to take this flak on a daily basis, the sooner we leave the better.

I know that people stayed away and didn't vote because they thought they'd win. I also know that other people (potential Leavers) stayed away and didn't vote because they thought they'd lose. The question is whether the first group is significantly higher than the second group. I believe it is, and my opinion is backed up by post-referendum surveys, but of course like most Leavers you do not accept the findings of these (mainly, I suspect, because they tend to give results you don't really want to see).

You said let's stick to facts, but then didn't give any apart from the result, the 'we won, you lost, get over it' mantra. I happen to think it was a freak result, if another referendum had been held a couple of days later (knowing the result of the first) the outcome might well have been very different. I do not think such important decisions should be based on such small margins. The sooner we agree to stay in the better.

[bristolboy]

29 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

I can't really agree with the last sentence. This wasn't a General Election where the electorate approve a specific mandate for a couple years. It was a one off decision, and everyone agreed to those terms before the vote. 

Apart from a few minor figures like this one:

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

 

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Obtuse thinking at it's best.

 

Cameron said vote In or Out.

 

If anyone of either persuasion chose not to vote............... som nom nar.

 

I voted - good job I didn't take notice of the polls - and the bookies - and think "no point in voting because it is a cast iron remain win"...... oh no, siree, I exercised my democratic right - and obligation - to vote for what I believed in.

 

Me too.

[Stupooey]

20 minutes ago, vogie said:

Well that makes more sense than, I thought 39% wasn't motivated enough to turn out, and they were all remainers. ???

There are many reasons people don't vote. In the Referendum the age group with the highest turnout was the over 65s (90 per cent), but this is not unusual as the same pattern occurs in General Elections. There is a good reason for this. It is not that when people reach 65 they suddenly become politically aware. It is that it is far easier for retired people to fit the act of voting into their day - they are not going to be stuck in a meeting that overruns, or find themselves unexpectedly working away from home. In General Elections this does not matter too much as their votes are spread across the parties (usually slightly in favour of the Conservatives, but not decisively so). In the Referendum, however, it was found that over 65s voted solidly for Leave for whatever reason (spite comes to mind).

Another group with a very high turnout rate was University students (85 per cent), even though many of them found that due to the timing of the Referendum (just after the end of the academic year) they were not registered to vote where they found themselves. Again the high turnout was probably due to the opportunity to be able to vote, this time mainly in favour of Remain. 

The difference, of course, is that there are far more over 65s than there are University students.

[My Thai Life]

@@bristol boy - So now you're a Farage supporter! I wasn't following the referendum back then, because the outcome doesn't affect me at all, so I really wasn't aware of any of Farage's outpourings. And it doesn't change the fact that a referendum is not the same as a GE.

 

Anyway some remainers are doing just what Farage apparently said he'd do, and I've never said that the remainers shouldn't try to get a 2nd referendum. I've just highlighted a few of the insurmountable problems in doing so.

 

But times have moved on now, and neither of the major parties supports a 2nd referendum. The press attack on Corbyn seems to be heating up as per today's Guardian (the "anti-semitism" row - hard not to believe that it's been concocted just for this purpose). So it looks like Labour is going to be even more of a lame duck than it is now. And Corbyn is a natural Leaver to boot.

 

But good luck to you anyway.

Edited September 1, 2018 by My Thai Life

[Chomper Higgot]

17 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

@@bristol boy - So now you're a Farage supporter! I wasn't following the referendum back then, because the outcome doesn't affect me at all, so I really wasn't aware of any of Farage's outpourings. And it doesn't change the fact that a referendum is not the same as a GE.

 

Anyway some remainers are doing just what Farage apparently said he'd do, and I've never said that the remainers shouldn't try to get a 2nd referendum. I've just highlighted a few of the insurmountable problems in doing so.

 

But times have moved on now, and neither of the major parties supports a 2nd referendum. The press attack on Corbyn seems to be heating up as per today's Guardian (the "anti-semitism" row - hard not to believe that it's been concocted just for this purpose). So it looks like Labour is going to be even more of a lame duck than it is now. And Corbyn is a natural Leaver to boot.

 

But good luck to you anyway.

I wouldn’t write Labour/Corbyn off over such an obvious smear campaign given the huge swing Labour pulled off last election.

 

And hold declarations on the policy of both parties until the Party Conferences are over.

 

As you say, ‘times have moved on now’.

 

The Brexit mess continues, ‘Project fear’ is turning into ‘Reality’ and half the electorate are not yet being represented.

 

The game is not over!

[adammike]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

Apart from a few minor figures like this one:

Nigel Farage wants second referendum if Remain campaign scrapes narrow win

Nigel Farage warns today he would fight for a second referendum on Britain in Europe if the remain campaign won by a narrow margin next month.

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.”

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017

 

Before the referendum he said "if the result is 60-40 to stay that would be unfinished business".

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, adammike said:

Before the referendum he said "if the result is 60-40 to stay that would be unfinished business".

I don't think so. I haven't seen that anywhere.

Anyway, the confirmable facts, and the lack of condemnation from the Leave camp, are damning enough.

Edited September 1, 2018 by bristolboy

[My Thai Life]

52 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I wouldn’t write Labour/Corbyn off over such an obvious smear campaign given the huge swing Labour pulled off last election.

Let me remind you that Labour were on a Leave ticket for that election. They gained 32 seats or something like that. With a final result of Tories 318, Labour 262? The hype surrounding that result was one of the biggest cases of celebrating failure I can remember.

 

In my opinion Corbyn is unelectable. There’s something about him that British voters just won’t go for for the top job. And that’s not counting the “anti-semitism” factor. Blair would have been the guy, but no-one will ever trust him again, and rightly so.

 

And what are the chances of a GE anyway? The Tories might squabble between themselves, but they close ranks pretty fast when they need to.

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, Grouse said:

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.

Please consider my suggestion. It seems to satisfy every angle?

[Rimmer]

An off topic baiting post has been removed

[Grouse]

6 hours ago, vogie said:

Do you actually believe what you post, nothing implies that the people that didn't vote were happy with the "status quo", if people cannot be bothered voting (for what ever reasons), personally I think the people that didn't vote knew that more people would vote out so they didn't bother turning up, just as rediculous as your offering.

 

Please accept that this why super majorities are required to ratify constitutional issues. If there is an insufficient groundswell, the status quo ante remains. 

[Grouse]

5 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

I agree to a certain extent -  apart from your view that "otherwise the status quo ante remains.".

 

My opinion on this is entirely the opposite!

 

i.e. If there isn't a super majority referendum result that agrees with the politicians' decision on the final deal - then the uk has to leave with no deal.

 

The referendum result was to leave - and if politicians are unable to come up with a deal that is able to command a super majority amongst the electorate, there is no reason to back-track from the original referendum result.

I'm afraid there is every reason to back track. No matter what Cameron said, wrote or implied, Parliament is sovereign.

 

IMO, best endeavors have been used to find a solution. That solution needs to be tested.

 

Parliament should decide and that decision be subject to ratification by a super majority. This is the way to avoid civil war and a continuation of this damaging situation.