Superdry co-founder gives 1 million pounds to campaign for second Brexit vote

[Chelseafan]

1 minute ago, candide said:

Several arguments have been exposed in this thread. I have not seen much pro-brexit arguments except " we will be free" "we will be able to make sovereign decisions" "we will not be subject to the ECJ", etc...

The only coherent arguments I have seen were from ultra-liberal economists: free trade, low taxes, minimal regulations, minimal social help. I don't support them but at least they are coherent. But I'm not sure that's what all leavers voted for.

I haven't read all the threads so can't really comment and I suspect the pro-brexit arguments are few because in all reality it's a big leap into the unknown. You're right,  additionally we we should see lower food/clothing prices from free-trade agreements, an end to protectionism and lower taxes but my concern is that I don't think we have people capable of taking the country forward.

 

[stevenl]

8 hours ago, Basil B said:

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

Of course you'd get fair treatment, I don't see any reason for bad blood, and even if there were, after 1-2 election cycles it will all be gone.

[bristolboy]

8 hours ago, Basil B said:

I for one did not vote leave...

I believe had the voters been told the true facts the result would have been a decisive remain...

But a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the referendum, and a lot of bad blood, I do not feel we could ever be a full member receiving fair treatment again so would next time vote leave.

 

 

I don't think the EU believes it's in their short, medium, or long term interests for the UK to be outside the EU. So what would they gain from treating the UK badly?

[Bluespunk]

9 hours ago, Chelseafan said:

There can be but why should there be ? We voted. We lost. We should accept the verdict of the majority. Whether the choice is the correct one only time will tell.

 

To vote again when we have no real further information other than scare-mongering from both sides of the camp would be pointless.

 

 

I see no reason why those campaigning for change should not continue to do so, just because they lost one vote. 

 

As the potential consequences of brexit come clearer, then they certainly have every reason to push for another vote. 

[Chelseafan]

21 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I see no reason why those campaigning for change should not continue to do so, just because they lost one vote. 

 

As the potential consequences of brexit come clearer, then they certainly have every reason to push for another vote. 

So you think we should vote as many times until we get the "correct" result? You're beginning to sound like a certain Mrs. Sturgeon ?

 

Other than moving to WTO tariffs nothing seems to be that much clearer and the more I hear from Brussels the more I realise that maybe, just maybe we are making the right decision.

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

8 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

So you think we should vote as many times until we get the "correct" result?

That’s how democracy works. Democracy isn’t capped. 

[Bluespunk]

26 minutes ago, Chelseafan said:

So you think we should vote as many times until we get the "correct" result? You're beginning to sound like a certain Mrs. Sturgeon ?

 

Other than moving to WTO tariffs nothing seems to be that much clearer and the more I hear from Brussels the more I realise that maybe, just maybe we are making the right decision.

 

There is no justification for denying citizens their democratic rights to call for another vote. 

 

Don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the economic downsides and exposure of brexiteer misleading campaign promises (nhs funding for one) have become a lot clearer since the vote. 

[melvinmelvin]

29 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

There is no justification for denying citizens their democratic rights to call for another vote. 

 

Don’t know what you’ve been reading, but the economic downsides and exposure of brexiteer misleading campaign promises (nhs funding for one) have become a lot clearer since the vote. 

 

by all means, campaigning for another vote is a democratic right,

does of course not mean that they will have their way

 

[RuamRudy]

1 hour ago, Chelseafan said:

So you think we should vote as many times until we get the "correct" result? You're beginning to sound like a certain Mrs. Sturgeon ?

 

 

Or, indeed, someone of much lesser standing.

 

[Bluespunk]

16 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

by all means, campaigning for another vote is a democratic right,

does of course not mean that they will have their way

 

Absolutely no reason they shouldn’t though, we can all agree that there is no reason brexit cannot be reversed.

 

Yes?

[billd766]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

Double bloody post again.

16 hours ago, vogie said:

 

[billd766]

16 hours ago, vogie said:

I would have thought this was the alternative.

 

Power to the People!!!!!!

 

Pseudo Leader of the Tooting Popular Front. This will now be renamed the Islington North Popular Front.

 

I thought the series was great but it seems like Virtual Reality has taken over.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

That’s how democracy works. Democracy isn’t capped. 

 

So who decides what is the "correct" vote?

 

What is the "correct" vote?

 

1 from 2, 1 from 3, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5 ad infinitum and who should pay for all these extra referendums?

 

What would be the pass mark, a simple majority, 60/40, 2/3, 70/30 etc?

 

Who will formulate the question (s) and supervise the vote?

 

What would happen if the winning side did not achieve the correct number of votes but still won a majority? Would it revert to the status it was before?

 

Democracy doesn't work like that, which is why we have general elections to select people to make the decisions for us.

 

[melvinmelvin]

34 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Absolutely no reason they shouldn’t though, we can all agree that there is no reason brexit cannot be reversed.

 

Yes?

a50 can be called off if that is what the uk gov. desires

 

[Chelseafan]

30 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

So who decides what is the "correct" vote?

 

What is the "correct" vote?

 

1 from 2, 1 from 3, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5 ad infinitum and who should pay for all these extra referendums?

 

What would be the pass mark, a simple majority, 60/40, 2/3, 70/30 etc?

 

Who will formulate the question (s) and supervise the vote?

 

What would happen if the winning side did not achieve the correct number of votes but still won a majority? Would it revert to the status it was before?

 

Democracy doesn't work like that, which is why we have general elections to select people to make the decisions for us.

 

Very well put.

[Bluespunk]

18 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

a50 can be called off if that is what the uk gov. desires

 

After a vote on the final deal?

 

A vote that includes a remain option?

 

Just in case I wasn’t clear, that is what I am asking. 

 

Still waiting for the poster I first quoted to reply...

[vogie]

6 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

After a vote on the final deal?

 

A vote that includes a remain option?

 

Just in case I wasn’t clear, that is what I am asking. 

 

Still waiting for the poster I first quoted to reply...

As my dear old mother used to say, "questions that needn't be asked, needn't be answered"

[Bluespunk]

Just now, vogie said:

As my dear old mother used to say, "questions that needn't be asked, needn't be answered"

How nice. 

 

Good quote. 

 

Shame it has no applicatuon in this case. 

 

I’ll remember it for future use though, keep an eye out for it, why don’t you...

[welovesundaysatspace]

43 minutes ago, billd766 said:

So who decides what is the "correct" vote?

I still don’t understand what a “correct vote” is supposed to be. 

 

43 minutes ago, billd766 said:

What is the "correct" vote?

I never used this term, so please don’t ask me what it is. 

 

43 minutes ago, billd766 said:

1 from 2, 1 from 3, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5 ad infinitum and who should pay for all these extra referendums?

(...)

Democracy doesn't work like that, which is why we have general elections to select people to make the decisions for us.

Please don’t blame me for this idiocy. The U.K. decided it wants to let everyone have a say in highly complex political and economical questions. I think it’s bullshit, but since you started it in the first place, i understand when people now want the same right that was granted to the Brexit campaigners. 

 

 

[billd766]

28 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I still don’t understand what a “correct vote” is supposed to be. 

 

I never used this term, so please don’t ask me what it is. 

 

Please don’t blame me for this idiocy. The U.K. decided it wants to let everyone have a say in highly complex political and economical questions. I think it’s bullshit, but since you started it in the first place, i understand when people now want the same right that was granted to the Brexit campaigners. 

 

 

 

Sorry about that. I thought the post was yours.

 

However you last comment that people want the same right that was granted to the Brexit campaigners.

 

PM Cameron did not grant it JUST to the Brexit campaigners. It was to the whole voting population of the UK and everyone of voting age and who were registered voters had the opportunity to vote for or against Brexit. The Brexit vote won and the Remainers have whined and screamed ever since they lost.

 

Perhaps if another 1.5 million voters voted to Remain they may have won and then the Brexiteers would perhaps be whining and screaming and demanding a second vote.

 

But the Brexit side won and the Remainers can't accept that they lost and there IMHO is where it all fell apart.

 

To those who lost and are demanding another vote all I can say is I am sorry you lost but in life someone always wins and someone always loses. You had exactly the same choice that I did. If you didn't vote and could have then that problem is yours and not mine. 

 

I cast my vote to leave and the Leave side won.

 

Why should I be denied that right because others lost?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

1 from 2, 1 from 3, 2 from 3, 3 from 4 or 5 ad infinitum and who should pay for all these extra referendums?

 

What would be the pass mark, a simple majority, 60/40, 2/3, 70/30 etc?

 

I'd say there are two different ways, when doing a major constitutional change to the laws. 

 

2 out of 3 wins. Like now, the first vote was a drunken vote. People were uninformed and angry to the UK government and wanted to vote against their own interest. That was the first, drunken vote.

 

The next votes are more sober and more informed. Which are likely to give real results.

 

Do it like ancient Persians https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2016/03/22/wine-and-sleep-make-for-better-decisions/#1d1ac77724b1

 

“If an important decision is to be made, they [the Persians] discuss the question when they are drunk, and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held submits their decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober, is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.”

― Herodotus

 

Another way is to have 2/3 support of the big change of the current members of the parliament or general public referendum, which then will have to be confirmed by the next elected members of the parliament. 

 

This is to secure the stability of the nation in the long term, not just momentary mood swings.

 

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

After a vote on the final deal?

 

A vote that includes a remain option?

 

Just in case I wasn’t clear, that is what I am asking. 

 

Still waiting for the poster I first quoted to reply...

 

my understanding is that a50 can be called off at any point in time after it was triggered and until UK leaves

 

[Bluespunk]

2 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

my understanding is that a50 can be called off at any point in time after it was triggered and until UK leaves

 

Doesn’t answer my question on whether the poster believes there can be another vote or not. 

[welovesundaysatspace]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

But the Brexit side won and the Remainers can't accept that they lost and there IMHO is where it all fell apart.

Why do you think they don’t accept that they lost that vote? I think they accept that they lost that vote, and now move on with their cause. 

 

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Why should I be denied that right because others lost?

No one is denying you that you won. Everyone accepts that you won. People have moved on to the next round. That’s how democracy works. 

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Sorry about that. I thought the post was yours.

 

However you last comment that people want the same right that was granted to the Brexit campaigners.

 

PM Cameron did not grant it JUST to the Brexit campaigners. It was to the whole voting population of the UK and everyone of voting age and who were registered voters had the opportunity to vote for or against Brexit. The Brexit vote won and the Remainers have whined and screamed ever since they lost.

 

Perhaps if another 1.5 million voters voted to Remain they may have won and then the Brexiteers would perhaps be whining and screaming and demanding a second vote.

 

But the Brexit side won and the Remainers can't accept that they lost and there IMHO is where it all fell apart.

 

To those who lost and are demanding another vote all I can say is I am sorry you lost but in life someone always wins and someone always loses. You had exactly the same choice that I did. If you didn't vote and could have then that problem is yours and not mine. 

 

I cast my vote to leave and the Leave side won.

 

Why should I be denied that right because others lost?

I read this today and think it makes perfect sense:

 

"Any referendum can be either democratic or irreversible, but not both.

 

Just as no parliament can bind a successor, it follows that no electorate can do either.

 

The 2016 referendum does not and cannot bind the UK absolutely."

[melvinmelvin]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Doesn’t answer my question on whether the poster believes there can be another vote or not. 

 

 

 

you should ask someone who is familiar with UK public law and UK constitutional law - but I would assume it is if the cabinet so decides and the national assembly agrees

[Bluespunk]

6 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

 

 

you should ask someone who is familiar with UK public law and UK constitutional law - but I would assume it is if the cabinet so decides and the national assembly agrees

I didn’t ask that. 

 

I asked a poster if they agreed there is no reason another vote to reverse the brexit decision could not take place. 

 

It is them I am awaiting a reply from. 

 

Legally it can. 

 

 

[vogie]

1 hour ago, RuamRudy said:

I read this today and think it makes perfect sense:

 

"Any referendum can be either democratic or irreversible, but not both.

 

Just as no parliament can bind a successor, it follows that no electorate can do either.

 

The 2016 referendum does not and cannot bind the UK absolutely."

But since then we have learned that referendums are only advisory in the UK, god knows the remainers have told us enough times. So having another referendum would be totally pointless and would just waste everyones time, good job the goverment made a special concession for the 2016 one though.

[Chelseafan]

If the article from the Sun is to be believed, another referendum would have 'leave' miles ahead

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/7047947/british-voters-give-brexit-verdict/

[billd766]

4 hours ago, oilinki said:

I'd say there are two different ways, when doing a major constitutional change to the laws. 

 

2 out of 3 wins. Like now, the first vote was a drunken vote. People were uninformed and angry to the UK government and wanted to vote against their own interest. That was the first, drunken vote.

 

The next votes are more sober and more informed. Which are likely to give real results.

 

Do it like ancient Persians https://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2016/03/22/wine-and-sleep-make-for-better-decisions/#1d1ac77724b1

 

“If an important decision is to be made, they [the Persians] discuss the question when they are drunk, and the following day the master of the house where the discussion was held submits their decision for reconsideration when they are sober. If they still approve it, it is adopted; if not, it is abandoned. Conversely, any decision they make when they are sober, is reconsidered afterwards when they are drunk.”

― Herodotus

 

Another way is to have 2/3 support of the big change of the current members of the parliament or general public referendum, which then will have to be confirmed by the next elected members of the parliament. 

 

This is to secure the stability of the nation in the long term, not just momentary mood swings.

 

 

The first vote was NOT a drunken vote at all. It was a simple leave/remain vote with nothing difficult to understand. I certainly was not drunk nor did I vote against my own interest, neither did anybody I know.

 

There is no second vote unless it is decided by the government to make it so. There may even be a third vote at a great cost to the country to make sure that the UK gets the correct result.

 

What happens if there is a second vote and it is still in favour? Do we vote again and agin until the Remainers win?

 

You claim that the people were not fully informed as to what would happen.

 

When I voted in 1975 I had no idea that Ted Heath, PM at the time was lying to the people of the UK. If we had that information before the vote, would we still have voted to join?

 

When you make a decision, ANY decision, you go with the information you have AT THAT TIME which all you can do.

 

Hindsight is very nice but when you get it you may or may not change your mind.

 

I voted to leave and now 2 years later with 2 years more information, I would still vote the same way.