Britons would now vote to stay in EU, want second referendum: poll

[baboon]

14 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

Voting preferences have changed now that more people now understand that the Utopia promised by the Brexiteers will not happen .

Indeed. From a land of milk and honey, to 'Well it might not be an absolutely unmitigated disaster, at any rate.' Unfortunately their support base would follow them through the gates of Hell, disaster or not.

Edited January 7, 2019 by baboon

[Retiredandhappyhere]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

For the Brits who really want to stay in the EU I wish they will get what they want. I am sure the UK is a lot better off within the EU.

 

But for all the Brexiters and especially the hard Brexiters I hope they crash and burn. You really deserve what you will get. Just yesterday I read an articles that many Tories want Boris Johnson, Jacob Rees-Mogg or David Davis as their PM. How deluded must these voters be to even dream about that those incompetent morons will be able to make things better? They talk a lot about unicorns. And it seems lots of people still believe them. Unbelievable - except it really happens.

 

I am sure lots of people in the EU dream about how wonderful life could be without the UK.

 

Let's hope that the EU's dreams come true, then.  If there is to be a second referendum, the EU could well be in for their second major shock, similar to the first time.

[NE1]

7 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

It may be an issue of the remainers continuing to bang on and finally convincing a majority that they voted wrong last time. Isn't that what a democracy is supposed to do, be flexible to changing conditions so voters can make a more informed decision? Otherwise, policies could never change.

 

I am with the remainers on this. Always have been.

But as I stated , this would set a precedent for all future voting . Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. Just because you are on the side of the losers doesn't give you the right to bang on about how we were robbed , we want another vote , and if you lose the next one , then another vote , if you win will the losers then demand another vote.

To be honest I don't care one way or another , you can argue politics till the cows come home and you will always find for and against.

[LucysDad]

There won’t be a second referendum...... but if there were to be another vote remember how many remoaners lost money with the bookmakers....it could be the same again.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-eu-lexit-leave-remain-kate-hoey-a8711286.html?fbclid=IwAR06MBzfbUdsXKaIVCZHjnYPLYA-iqFWUayWSn19KRZXkEgdUtYc_BTX-HY

[Thakkar]

Referenda are inherently risky. A second brexit referendum, more so.

What if the result is “remain” but the turnout is lower than the last referendum? That right there would be the seeds for a demand for a third referendum.

 

Low turnout impossible to conceive on such an important issue, you say? Think again. All it takes is for those who voted exit the last time to believe they’re going to be outvoted and decide to stay home. In that case, “The People” will not have spoken. Only the remainers will have spoken.

 

It’s a <deleted>, but a second referendum is not the solution.

 

Norway+ would not satisfy leavers. Anything less would not satisfy remainers. There is no “good solution”

 

Cameron took a gamble to attract UKIP voters. Sometimes, gamblers lose their shirt. Cameron is doing just fine. The ordinary people of Britain are about to lose their shirt.

 

[RuamRudy]

4 minutes ago, LucysDad said:

 

 

In America do you always have two votes to try and get the result you want.

 

Last thing we need is a septic advising on democracy.

To be fair, our American cousins also have recent first hand experience of their democracy being hijacked by shadowy figures who are motivated by greed and self interest. 

[melvinmelvin]

strange this poll referred to above,

 

wasn't it just last week that a major poll concluded the opposite,

solid majority for leave - one way or the other

 

 

[keemapoot]

8 minutes ago, NE1 said:

But as I stated , this would set a precedent for all future voting . Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. Just because you are on the side of the losers doesn't give you the right to bang on about how we were robbed , we want another vote , and if you lose the next one , then another vote , if you win will the losers then demand another vote.

To be honest I don't care one way or another , you can argue politics till the cows come home and you will always find for and against.

Sure, and you can rightfully argue that at least your side should have had a chance to try this out. However, unlike many domestic policies which can change and then be redone, disengagement from this monster was always going to be a multi-year, highly complex arrangement, with far-reaching consequences never foreseen, such as fishing rights, an the proper quantitative analysis that should have been done prior to the first vote.

 

During which in the intervening years, more studies, more knowledge has come to light of the negative effects to the country and IN THIS CASE, it is warranted to go ahead an re-vote.

[Spidey]

2 hours ago, NE1 said:

You can't have a second vote , that is not democratic. 

It would set a very expensive and trouble making precedent. 

The vote was put to the people and the people voted , that is the end of it.

Otherwise you will end up with a " Red shirt / Yellow shirt scenario" .

General election , Tories won ,  we want another vote. Labour won , we want another vote.

 

 

So predictable. The majority want a second referendum and are likely to vot remain, so the expat Brexiteers cry foul! Undemocratic! Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[shackleton]

Cant see any winners on this one I think people are that sick of reading /hearing about Brexit

they will vote Teras Mays version through just to end all the pain of it never ending 

 

[NE1]

12 minutes ago, keemapoot said:

Sure, and you can rightfully argue that at least your side should have had a chance to try this out. However, unlike many domestic policies which can change and then be redone, disengagement from this monster was always going to be a multi-year, highly complex arrangement, with far-reaching consequences never foreseen, such as fishing rights, an the proper quantitative analysis that should have been done prior to the first vote.

 

During which in the intervening years, more studies, more knowledge has come to light of the negative effects to the country and IN THIS CASE, it is warranted to go ahead an re-vote.

In your opinion.

So when the Tories shut down the mines and sold off national companies , why wasn't there a re-vote citing , " During which in the intervening years, more studies, more knowledge has come to light of the negative effects to the country and IN THIS CASE, it is warranted to go ahead an re-vote ".

[whatsupdoc]

28 minutes ago, NE1 said:

But as I stated , this would set a precedent for all future voting . Somebody has to win and somebody has to lose. Just because you are on the side of the losers doesn't give you the right to bang on about how we were robbed , we want another vote , and if you lose the next one , then another vote , if you win will the losers then demand another vote.

To be honest I don't care one way or another , you can argue politics till the cows come home and you will always find for and against.

Democracy is not a tennis match. The latter has a winner and a loser.

Since the result of the referendum was so close a democratic solution would be to try and find a compromise (like a soft Brexit).

[NE1]

Democracy does have a winner and a loser . Walk into any bookies while there is a vote going on and you will see people betting on who will win..

Edited January 7, 2019 by NE1

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Democracy is not a tennis match. The latter has a winner and a loser.

Since the result of the referendum was so close a democratic solution would be to try and find a compromise (like a soft Brexit).

I think democracy is like a tennis match, you have the leavers playing a game of tennis while the remainers are trying to pull the net down or dig holes on the court.

The country voted to leave the EU, not to leave with one foot still stuck in the door which is what a soft brexit is, it's likened to being a bit pregnant I suppose.

[melvinmelvin]

2 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think democracy is like a tennis match, you have the leavers playing a game of tennis while the remainers are trying to pull the net down or dig holes on the court.

The country voted to leave the EU, not to leave with one foot still stuck in the door which is what a soft brexit is, it's likened to being a bit pregnant I suppose.

soft Brexit available now would have to be may-deal, hardly time for anything else since EU is not keen,

in my view it would be a major mistake to go with the may-deal, the future for NI and UK

would be out of control (or controlled by EU rather)

 

alternative soft path, in theory at least,

prolong the A50 period with a year or so, with a view to draw up deal that would be more palatable,

would likely be wise to ditch TM asap

 

even with a hard Brexit it will take long long time to sort out the current EU-UK integration,

TM is not needed anymore, not even for the vote on the deal,

has done sufficient damage me thinks

 

 

[whatsupdoc]

16 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think democracy is like a tennis match, you have the leavers playing a game of tennis while the remainers are trying to pull the net down or dig holes on the court.

The country voted to leave the EU, not to leave with one foot still stuck in the door which is what a soft brexit is, it's likened to being a bit pregnant I suppose.

Maybe it is the fault of the FPTP system in the UK, but when there is no willingness to reach compromises in politics you end up with a very divided society and all the conflict it brings.

Would not be my choice.

[zaZa9]

42 minutes ago, Jonnapat said:

An agenda well worth meeting for the sake of the country's future.

Especially the under 30's who voted overwhelmingly in favour of Remain because they were born Europeans.

Old white voters were always the problem ,leaving the mess that will ensue to the younger generation who have much more at stake.

Voting preferences have changed now that more people now understand that the Utopia promised by the Brexiteers will not happen .

 

 So , in the UK , "Old white voters were always the problem ..." ??

 

Is this the same "Old white voters.." who lost nearly everything  in order to see a Europe free of the swastika - you know , the same ones who finished paying off a "War Debt" 2006 ?  A debt  that most Euro countries - formally vassal states of Germany - didnt have to pay ?

 

The EU bureaucrats  will do everything in their  power to 'control' the UK and see it stay  , because if the UK leaves , many former colonies of the Nazis will likely also follow suit...

 

They simply cant let it happen ... and so they will spread rumours and fear and misinformation to see it doesnt.

Like the Foregone Conclusion Survey we are commenting on.

This is all about the erosion of Their power base  - the 'economics' part  is and always will be ,  about turning a profit , and will rectify itself very quickly ...

 

[melvinmelvin]

26 minutes ago, NE1 said:

Democracy does have a winner and a loser . Walk into any bookies while there is a vote going on and you will see people betting on who will win..

talking about bookies,

 

what to bookies say re the chances for may-deal

or hard Brexit or 2nd ref.?

 

[NE1]

Take your pick.......https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/brexit/2nd-eu-referendum

[baboon]

5 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

soft Brexit available now would have to be may-deal, hardly time for anything else since EU is not keen,

in my view it would be a major mistake to go with the may-deal, the future for NI and UK

would be out of control (or controlled by EU rather)

 

alternative soft path, in theory at least,

prolong the A50 period with a year or so, with a view to draw up deal that would be more palatable,

would likely be wise to ditch TM asap

 

even with a hard Brexit it will take long long time to sort out the current EU-UK integration,

TM is not needed anymore, not even for the vote on the deal,

has done sufficient damage me thinks

 

 

Extend Article 50. Then send Johnson, Gove, Raab and Rees-Mogg over to Brussels to put up or shut up. When they return to the UK empty-handed, the sensible people can kick them to the curb once and for all and work from there.

Of course it won't happen, but how good it would be to see them unmasked as the charlatans they are.

[mrmicbkktxl]

31 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think democracy is like a tennis match, you have the leavers playing a game of tennis while the remainers are trying to pull the net down or dig holes on the court.

The country voted to leave the EU, not to leave with one foot still stuck in the door which is what a soft brexit is, it's likened to being a bit pregnant I suppose.

Don't you think it would be only fair to have a new referendum?Two years ago nobody really knew what means brexit now I assume most of the people know about the pros and cons of brexit or staying in the EU

[allane]

There should be no extension of Article 50. If Britain is not out the door on March 29, it should be kicked out on the 30th. And, no second referendum either. Force those who voted "leave" to live with the consequences of their actions.  83, 82, 81,...

[evadgib]

4 hours ago, MARK74 said:

"The poll of more than 25,000 voters was commissioned by the People's Vote campaign, which is spearheading an increasingly vocal push for a second referendum on Brexit."

I may be wrong but most polls commissioned by a non impartial source seem to get the result they require to meet their agenda.

That lot? Porkies? Never! ????

 

[vogie]

18 minutes ago, whatsupdoc said:

Maybe it is the fault of the FPTP system in the UK, but when there is no willingness to reach compromises in politics you end up with a very divided society and all the conflict it brings.

Would not be my choice.

I agree, but how are you going to get the big two political parties agreeing to a PR voting system when FPTP favours both of them, with PR UKIP would have amassed about 60 seats in Parliament, can you imagine what a difference that would have made to brexit, that is assuming that the Tories would have formed a coalition with them of course.

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, baboon said:

Compared with the spivs and con(wo)men of the Monster Raving Tories, sounds fine to me.

Davis for me, but TBH the only person close to emulating Maggie (the sort of character desperately needed) is the one they (Parliamentarians) call Doris Karloff: ????

 

[vogie]

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

Extend Article 50. Then send Johnson, Gove, Raab and Rees-Mogg over to Brussels to put up or shut up. When they return to the UK empty-handed, the sensible people can kick them to the curb once and for all and work from there.

Of course it won't happen, but how good it would be to see them unmasked as the charlatans they are.

I don't think extending article 50 is as simple as it seems, I believe all of the other 27 countries of the EU have to agree to the UKs request, and like another referendum, time is running out.

[baboon]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Davis for me, but TBH the only person close to emulating Maggie (the sort of character desperately needed) is the one they (Parliamentarians) call Doris Karloff: ????

 

Each to their own. Me, I would prefer Kim Jong Un over any of that lot...

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

I don't think extending article 50 is as simple as it seems, I believe all of the other 27 countries of the EU have to agree to the UKs request, and like another referendum, time is running out.

According to the recent ECJ ruling, it can be done unilaterally. 

[vogie]

Just now, welovesundaysatspace said:

According to the recent ECJ ruling, it can be done unilaterally. 

I think you are meaning cancelling art 50, to the best of my knowledge delaying it requires all 27 countries.

[welovesundaysatspace]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think you are meaning cancelling art 50, to the best of my knowledge delaying it requires all 27 countries.

1. Cancel +

2. A50 again 

= Extension / Delaying

 

(And neither 1. nor 2. would require consent from the other 27.)

Edited January 7, 2019 by welovesundaysatspace