UK opposition leader will back second Brexit vote if party wants it

[welovesundaysatspace]

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But he wasn't binned for quite a while later and after many thousands of people died.

 

He is still waltzing around with his ex PMs pension the pension that the EU gave him.

There are many murderers walking around freely. Do you want to suggest that means we should let all murderers walk freely because they should get the same right?

 

Its bad enough that some were able

to get away with it. We shouldn’t do the same mistake again. 

[johnnybangkok]

53 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I can remember a few years ago that the Labour Party leader at the time, Tony Blair to the UK into a war and that was based on lies and confusion but I don't remember the Labour Party arguing about that. Nor do I remember being allowed to challenge that decision.

 

Was that also democracy?

Ok, so let's use your example here to argue why there should be another referendum.

Blair & Bush start the Iraq war based on the lies of WMD. At the time, no one knew this was a lie, but several years later the Chilcot Inquiry points out what everyone knew by then i.e. there was no need to go to war and that the claim of WMD was a fabrication. This was many years after the war and far too late to do anything about it.

Fast forward to current times.

The Leave campaign tells countless lies, starting with the UK paying £350 million per week to the EU, that if the UK leaves it will be able to properly fund the NHS using the savings made from EU contributions, that the UK would be able to stay in the single market, that the UK will get a great trade deal with the rest of the world, that the UK has lost its sovereignty by being in the EU anyway, that the UK cannot control its borders, that the UK is 'full' and cannot take any more people and that migrants are ruining the economy and therefore the country.

Lies, lies, lies.

The Leave campaign was essential built entirely on lies and now 2 years down the line we know this as a fact but are still happily letting them get their way because a vote based on lies was backed by a slim majority of people. That to me just seems crazy.

You are right to call out what happened with the Iraq war as being based on 'lies and confusion' but what's the difference with Brexit? 

The difference is there is still a (slim) chance to rectify matters and present to the electorate what Brexit actually means (hard/soft/deal/no deal) once all the debate is over. 

This is what Brexit will actually mean and when presented with no histrionics and no lies then the people will have a clear understanding of what it will mean to them and through a second referendum, get the chance to say yes or no.  

 

Edited September 25, 2018 by johnnybangkok

[welovesundaysatspace]

32 minutes ago, billd766 said:

But he wasn't binned for quite a while later and after many thousands of people died.

 

He is still waltzing around with his ex PMs pension the pension that the EU gave him.

There are many murderers walking around freely. Do you want to suggest that means we should let all murderers walk freely because they should get the same right?

 

Its bad enough that some were able

to get away with it. We shouldn’t do the same mistake again. 

[Guest]

Sounds to me that Corbyn, who is against EU, is offering 2nd referendum only because he knows it's not going to happen. 

 

UK would do so much better if only it would have a real British leader on labour party. 

[Bluespunk]

2 hours ago, NanLaew said:

Ooooohhh... watch for that slippery slope now.

Yep, we must avoid the calls of authoritarian, anti democratic voices, whose fears lead them to deny others their democratic right to call for another vote.

 

Full agree.

Edited September 25, 2018 by Bluespunk

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

As I've already said, the pre referendum campaign was a farce. Now that voters realise the implications of leaving, they should be allowed to make an informed vote.

 

How can voters know the implications of leaving if we haven't left yet, and haven't even finalised the negotiations?

 

What you mean is, for 2 years the voters have been fed with doom and gloom from the people and organisations who are desperate for the UK to remain in the EU.

 

 

 

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

 

How can voters know the implications of leaving if we haven't left yet, and haven't even finalised the negotiations?

 

What you mean is, for 2 years the voters have been fed with doom and gloom from the people and organisations who are desperate for the UK to remain in the EU.

 

 

 

No, what I mean is that voters were fed with "welcome to Nirvana" pipe dreams before the vote. We have learned the reality since then.

[CG1 Blue]

35 minutes ago, Spidey said:

No, what I mean is that voters were fed with "welcome to Nirvana" pipe dreams before the vote. We have learned the reality since then.

What have we learned that the Remain campaign didn't tell us in the run up to the referendum?

Are things worse than the Remain campaign made out they would be? Think about all that stuff George Osborne told us. I seem to recall he went as far as telling us exactly how much our weekly shop would cost us!

 

You have to remember there were two campaigns!

[Spidey]

43 minutes ago, CG1 Blue said:

What have we learned that the Remain campaign didn't tell us in the run up to the referendum?

Are things worse than the Remain campaign made out they would be? Think about all that stuff George Osborne told us. I seem to recall he went as far as telling us exactly how much our weekly shop would cost us!

 

You have to remember there were two campaigns!

Hardly noticeable at the time. Weak and ineffectual remain campaign that didn't challenge the BS that Boris and co were feeding us.

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Hardly noticeable at the time. Weak and ineffectual remain campaign that didn't challenge the BS that Boris and co were feeding us.

Hardly noticeable? If you didn't notice the avalanche of apocalyptic predictions coming from Cameron, Osborne etc., day in / day out, I can only assume you weren't in the UK at the time.

I'm sure the Leave vote would have been much higher if it weren't for their fear campaign.

[billd766]

22 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Ok, so let's use your example here to argue why there should be another referendum.

Blair & Bush start the Iraq war based on the lies of WMD. At the time, no one knew this was a lie, but several years later the Chilcot Inquiry points out what everyone knew by then i.e. there was no need to go to war and that the claim of WMD was a fabrication. This was many years after the war and far too late to do anything about it.

Fast forward to current times.

The Leave campaign tells countless lies, starting with the UK paying £350 million per week to the EU, that if the UK leaves it will be able to properly fund the NHS using the savings made from EU contributions, that the UK would be able to stay in the single market, that the UK will get a great trade deal with the rest of the world, that the UK has lost its sovereignty by being in the EU anyway, that the UK cannot control its borders, that the UK is 'full' and cannot take any more people and that migrants are ruining the economy and therefore the country.

Lies, lies, lies.

The Leave campaign was essential built entirely on lies and now 2 years down the line we know this as a fact but are still happily letting them get their way because a vote based on lies was backed by a slim majority of people. That to me just seems crazy.

You are right to call out what happened with the Iraq war as being based on 'lies and confusion' but what's the difference with Brexit? 

The difference is there is still a (slim) chance to rectify matters and present to the electorate what Brexit actually means (hard/soft/deal/no deal) once all the debate is over. 

This is what Brexit will actually mean and when presented with no histrionics and no lies then the people will have a clear understanding of what it will mean to them and through a second referendum, get the chance to say yes or no.  

 

 

But at this point in time nobody KNOWS what Brexit will entail as the EU and the UK are still negotiating (or not). 

 

Both the Leave and Remain campaigns were based on lies.

 

This is your opinion and not backed up by any facts as there are no final facts on the table yet.

 

I don't have an opinion on the final terms of Brexit yet, partly because it is still ongoing and partly because I am not on the negotiating team.

[johnnybangkok]

21 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

But at this point in time nobody KNOWS what Brexit will entail as the EU and the UK are still negotiating (or not). 

 

Both the Leave and Remain campaigns were based on lies.

 

This is your opinion and not backed up by any facts as there are no final facts on the table yet.

 

I don't have an opinion on the final terms of Brexit yet, partly because it is still ongoing and partly because I am not on the negotiating team.

 

I'm not quite seeing your point here as of course no one knows what it is. I'm not saying otherwise, just merely pointing out that eventually we WILL know what the final Brexit deal will look like and once that is known, then a second referendum should be called.

In the meantime I think people are beginning to understand what a hard/soft Brexit is all about and also the dreaded 'no deal" that seems to be increasingly likely as the deadline approaches. These scenarios are not secret and are based on facts and have nothing to do with mine or anyone else's opinion.

Much like yourself, I don't have an opinion on what isn't known but my original post did say 'once all the debate is over" so I think it was clear I meant once the final deal is known.

Edited September 26, 2018 by johnnybangkok

[billd766]

10 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

 

I'm not quite seeing your point here as of course no one knows what it is. I'm not saying otherwise, just merely pointing out that eventually we WILL know what the final Brexit deal will look like and once that is known, then a second referendum should be called.

In the meantime I think people are beginning to understand what a hard/soft Brexit is all about and also the dreaded 'no deal" that seems to be increasingly likely as the deadline approaches. These scenarios are not secret and are based on facts and have nothing to do with mine or anyone else's opinion.

Much like yourself, I don't have an opinion on what isn't known but I also don't see the harm in still discussing matters as and when more information comes to light.   

 

So when we know what the deal is we should have a second referendum? 

 

I have said earlier in the thread what would be the rules, the questions, who would frame the questions, what would be the pass/fail mark, simple majority, 60%, 2/3, 70%, 75%, what would the status be if neither side reaches the target.

 

If the Remainers win would they allow the Leavers another vote?

 

Nobody has come up with any real answers.

 

Have you any idea how long it takes to set up a referendum so that ALL the voters, local, postal proxy votes worldwide can be contacted? 

 

Meanwhile we have the Brexit deal completed (whatever it is doesn't matter) awaiting the result of the referendum and then we say to the EU, hang on a couple of months until we get this sorted out and perhaps another one after that and maybe even a general election too.  That may or may not result in a win for one side or the other. Maybe even a coalition government or perhaps a stalemate and yet another election. 

 

Do you believe that the EU will say, OK take all the time you want and come back when you are ready?

[melvinmelvin]

23 hours ago, oilinki said:

Sounds to me that Corbyn, who is against EU, is offering 2nd referendum only because he knows it's not going to happen. 

 

UK would do so much better if only it would have a real British leader on labour party. 

 

well I am not at all sure that I can see any point in having a 2nd ref.

 

I see the process this way;

 

UK trigger  A50

UK and  EU enter a 2 year talks period

talks may yield; good deal - bad deal - ok deal - zilch

regardless; end of talks, (March next year) UK leaves EU

UNLESS something else is agreed with EU

 

2nd referendum on deal or leave or stay has no formal impact on the process

same same UK parliament, it has no formal say in this process apart from advising the PM

 

the only real decision maker here is the EU

 

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

In the meantime I think people are beginning to understand what a hard/soft Brexit is all about and also the dreaded 'no deal" that seems to be increasingly likely as the deadline approaches.

This 'dreaded' no deal you mention, that is in fact what most countries outside the EU have. That is called becoming a non-EU country.  That is Brexit. It may be complicated removing ourselves from all the EU tentacles, but not impossible.

 

A post-Brexit trade deal would benefit both the UK and the EU, and in theory should be easy to put in place given that we have a template already. A trade deal would be a bonus (for both sides).

 

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, CG1 Blue said:

This 'dreaded' no deal you mention, that is in fact what most countries outside the EU have. That is called becoming a non-EU country.  That is Brexit. It may be complicated removing ourselves from all the EU tentacles, but not impossible.

 

UK will be able to remove all EU tentacles. In fact UK have to do so in very near future.

 

This also means that UK is no longer a gateway to EU for foreign companies. Previously UK's status as one was based on both logical thinking as well as use of English language, which has been the Esperanto of Business world for decades. 

 

Fortunately for EU, many countries service sectors master English language and are able to serve international companies as UK is leaving the union.

 

Benelux and Scandinavian countries will benefit from Brexit. We are skilled enough to serve the international companies in English. We also are not as afraid of the foreigners as British people seems to be. 

[johnnybangkok]

4 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

So when we know what the deal is we should have a second referendum? 

 

I have said earlier in the thread what would be the rules, the questions, who would frame the questions, what would be the pass/fail mark, simple majority, 60%, 2/3, 70%, 75%, what would the status be if neither side reaches the target.

 

If the Remainers win would they allow the Leavers another vote?

 

Nobody has come up with any real answers.

 

Have you any idea how long it takes to set up a referendum so that ALL the voters, local, postal proxy votes worldwide can be contacted? 

 

Meanwhile we have the Brexit deal completed (whatever it is doesn't matter) awaiting the result of the referendum and then we say to the EU, hang on a couple of months until we get this sorted out and perhaps another one after that and maybe even a general election too.  That may or may not result in a win for one side or the other. Maybe even a coalition government or perhaps a stalemate and yet another election. 

 

Do you believe that the EU will say, OK take all the time you want and come back when you are ready?

'So when we know what the deal is we should have a second referendum?' - yes

'.......what would be the rules, the questions, who would frame the questions, what would be the pass/fail mark, simple majority, 60%, 2/3, 70%, 75%, what would the status be if neither side reaches the target.' - Question - now we know exactly what Brexit means, do we remain or leave?

 

'If the Remainers win would they allow the Leavers another vote?' - No

 

'Have you any idea how long it takes to set up a referendum so that ALL the voters, local, postal proxy votes worldwide can be contacted?' - The minimum 10-week referendum period is specified in PPERA, and comprises three parts: four weeks for applications to be lead campaigner on each side, two weeks for designation, and four weeks for campaigning. This schedule could be amended by the legislation enabling a new referendum.

 

'......awaiting the result of the referendum and then we say to the EU, hang on a couple of months until we get this sorted out' - March is just a date that has been agreed so far. If all 28 EU states agree, this date can be extended. Also, there is 21 month 'transition' period after the March deadline.

 

'Do you believe that the EU will say, OK take all the time you want and come back when you are ready?' - Not all the time you want but if the referendum was completed quickly and wasn't strung out too long, yes I do.

 

No one said this was going to be easy but my point was (and still is) that people voted without knowing exactly what Brexit meant. Once it is known (which increasingly looks like a no-deal) then that is what a second referendum should be about. It's just too important not to.  And yes, if it happens to come out 'leave' again, then no one should have any complaints this time.

 

[vogie]

12 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

'So when we know what the deal is we should have a second referendum?' - yes

'.......what would be the rules, the questions, who would frame the questions, what would be the pass/fail mark, simple majority, 60%, 2/3, 70%, 75%, what would the status be if neither side reaches the target.' - Question - now we know exactly what Brexit means, do we remain or leave?

 

'If the Remainers win would they allow the Leavers another vote?' - No

 

'Have you any idea how long it takes to set up a referendum so that ALL the voters, local, postal proxy votes worldwide can be contacted?' - The minimum 10-week referendum period is specified in PPERA, and comprises three parts: four weeks for applications to be lead campaigner on each side, two weeks for designation, and four weeks for campaigning. This schedule could be amended by the legislation enabling a new referendum.

 

'......awaiting the result of the referendum and then we say to the EU, hang on a couple of months until we get this sorted out' - March is just a date that has been agreed so far. If all 28 EU states agree, this date can be extended. Also, there is 21 month 'transition' period after the March deadline.

 

'Do you believe that the EU will say, OK take all the time you want and come back when you are ready?' - Not all the time you want but if the referendum was completed quickly and wasn't strung out too long, yes I do.

 

No one said this was going to be easy but my point was (and still is) that people voted without knowing exactly what Brexit meant. Once it is known (which increasingly looks like a no-deal) then that is what a second referendum should be about. It's just too important not to.  And yes, if it happens to come out 'leave' again, then no one should have any complaints this time.

 

The only people that want another referendum are the losers and as to your remark that people didn't know what they are voting for, well 2 years on and people are much wiser and their opinion on leaving remains pretty much the same.

[Guest]

2nd referendum would show the will of the British people to stay with the European community. 

 

If UK wishes to stay within EU, 2nd referendum is really required at this point. If the result is that UK still wishes to divorce EU, so be it. At least at that point the way where UK wants to really go, would be crystal clear. 

 

At this time, nobody knows what the people of UK really wants. Sometimes it feels great to show ones middle finger to the local politicians, but that is just a temporary feeling. Reality strikes later on, like it has on this Brexit vote.

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

2nd referendum would show the will of the British people to stay with the European community. 

 

If UK wishes to stay within EU, 2nd referendum is really required at this point. If the result is that UK still wishes to divorce EU, so be it. At least at that point the way where UK wants to really go, would be crystal clear. 

 

At this time, nobody knows what the people of UK really wants. Sometimes it feels great to show ones middle finger to the local politicians, but that is just a temporary feeling. Reality strikes later on, like it has on this Brexit vote.

Are you saying we should have another referendum on the once in a lifetime referendum, you know the one where the government said "we will impliment what you decide"

You are so funny Olly. ????????????

[CG1 Blue]

40 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

No one said this was going to be easy but my point was (and still is) that people voted without knowing exactly what Brexit meant. Once it is known (which increasingly looks like a no-deal) then that is what a second referendum should be about. It's just too important not to.  And yes, if it happens to come out 'leave' again, then no one should have any complaints this time.

I think the majority of people who voted Leave simply didn't want to be part of the EU project. They may have had leanings toward one or more parts of the project that particularly bothered them, but ultimately they all just wanted out. They knew what out meant. It was made very clear.

 

You say "once it is known", then that will be the time for a second referendum. I actually agree with you on that. However, it's going to take a few years to know the real impact of Brexit, so that would mean a 2nd referendum in say 2023? 

Edited September 26, 2018 by CG1 Blue

[johnnybangkok]

16 minutes ago, vogie said:

The only people that want another referendum are the losers and as to your remark that people didn't know what they are voting for, well 2 years on and people are much wiser and their opinion on leaving remains pretty much the same.

That is just blatantly untrue. If you read this post from the beginning you will see that it was started as so many polls are now showing the remain camp at anything between 55% and 60%.

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/this-poll-shows-support-for-brexit-is-collapsing-2018-9

https://www.albawaba.com/news/fickle-brits-now-say-they-want-stay-eu-60-poll-shows-1182028

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-polls/britain-would-now-vote-to-stay-in-the-eu-new-poll-shows-idUSKCN1 

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-poll-shows-londoners-would-now-vote-21-to-remain-in-the-eu-a3930061.html

 

If you are so confident that the vote will still be 'leave' then why not have another referendum? Then you can say for sure that, with all the facts now being known, the UK electorate still decided to leave. You would then have no dissent whatsoever. 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, vogie said:

Are you saying we should have another referendum on the once in a lifetime referendum, you know the one where the government said "we will impliment what you decide"

You are so funny Olly. ????????????

I'm saying if you UK people want to save their country, they should really think over, what they want. Not you. 

[CG1 Blue]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

UK will be able to remove all EU tentacles. In fact UK have to do so in very near future.

 

This also means that UK is no longer a gateway to EU for foreign companies. Previously UK's status as one was based on both logical thinking as well as use of English language, which has been the Esperanto of Business world for decades. 

 

Fortunately for EU, many countries service sectors master English language and are able to serve international companies as UK is leaving the union.

 

Benelux and Scandinavian countries will benefit from Brexit. We are skilled enough to serve the international companies in English. We also are not as afraid of the foreigners as British people seems to be. 

Yes, the Scandinavians have no issues with immigration (foreigners)...

 

25 September 2018

Sweden's centre-left prime minister, Stefan Lofven, will have to stand down after losing the support of parliament.

The anti-immigration Sweden Democrats (SD) backed the vote to remove him, weeks after a general election that delivered a hung parliament.

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by CG1 Blue

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm saying if you UK people want to save their country, they should really think over, what they want. Not you. 

Nor you either, you don't have a clue what will happen after brexit. I think as a British National I am entitled to have a say as to the future my country.

[CG1 Blue]

9 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

If you are so confident that the vote will still be 'leave' then why not have another referendum? Then you can say for sure that, with all the facts now being known, the UK electorate still decided to leave. You would then have no dissent whatsoever. 

"with all the facts being known"?

Which facts are known about a post-Brexit Britain?

 

What's actually happening is the Remain camp are trying to put the fear of God into Leavers, have a quick 2nd ref, and hope enough of them have been frightened into changing their minds.

[billd766]

17 minutes ago, oilinki said:

I'm saying if you UK people want to save their country, they should really think over, what they want. Not you. 

 

Or you come to that?

[My Thai Life]

So the Labour Conference has come and gone, and the wishful thinking expressed by those who pinned their hopes on the LP adopting as policy a 2nd referendum has come to naught. The leadership of both parties are against it, moreover the last one took around 13 months so we've run out of time anway. From The Guardian just now:

 

“The Labour leadership (which means Corbyn and McDonnell) have no enthusiasm at all for actually staging a second referendum. Although party policy has shifted, this is much more of a cosmetic shift than a statement of intent because we have heard a lot this week to suggest that Corbyn and the most influential people around him have very, very strong objections to the idea of staging a new in/out referendum. A lot of that is explained by the fear that going all out for remain could cost Labour sets in leave areas. This is another area where the leadership is siding with the unions, not the constituency activists.”

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2018/sep/26/corbyn-speech-labour-conference-set-to-address-labour-conference-as-party-rejects-mps-call-for-general-strike-politics-live

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

Nor you either, you don't have a clue what will happen after brexit. I think as a British National I am entitled to have a say as to the future my country.

I have always been rather open that I'm not British national.

 

While I agree that nobody of us knows what happens when Brexit really happens, we still can have assumptions what is likely to happen. 

 

We can also logically think that EU countries should take and fight for the UK financial sector services. It would be stupid not to take those service profits away from UK. Would you agree?

[My Thai Life]

1 hour ago, oilinki said:

We also are not as afraid of the foreigners as British people seems to be. 

Really? I thought your knowledge of your country's politics would be better than your knowledge of my country's politics.

 

Olli Immonen, one of the party's MPs, wrote of what he called "this nightmare called multiculturalism" on his Facebook page, adding: "We will fight until the end for our homeland and one true Finnish nation."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34185297

 

And just to put Finland's immigration into perspective.

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2018 by My Thai Life