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

[nauseus]

10 minutes ago, Spidey said:

So all elections have a fixed length? No, if you can hold a general election months apart, you can hold a referendum almost 3 years apart. Unless you are frightened of getting the "wrong" result, of course.

I was talking about fairness but obviously you can't accept that concept. I should have known better.

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, Spidey said:

But you can re-enact it.

Like a murder?

[nauseus]

9 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

of course not,

the list was supposed to be part of parliament's menu of alternatives to discuss

Sorry I thought it was sequential. My cock-up!

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, nauseus said:

I was talking about fairness but obviously you can't accept that concept. I should have known better.

Sounds fair to me. The facts have changed over the last 3 years, so hold another referendum.

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The comparison with the USA and its states is not a good one and I hope it never will be.

 

The recent poor performance of our elected representatives shows that the people must have a direct say in important issues like Brexit - the result of the referendum proves that - there is a new and big issue of mistrust by the British of their own Parliament now.    

I agree. The current crop of MPs are disappointing. They should all be subject reselection locally and independents should stand in every constituency. I'm going to stand as a Bigotry party MP in Yorkshire.

[nauseus]

5 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I agree. The current crop of MPs are disappointing. They should all be subject reselection locally and independents should stand in every constituency. I'm going to stand as a Bigotry party MP in Yorkshire.

Good luck Grouse. But there's a lot of competition up there! ????

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

We've had general elections, in the past, that have been held within months of each other. Governments rarely serve the full 5 year term. Was the last election held 5 years after the previous one? No, May thought that the will of the people had changed and she would call a snap election to increase her majority. Silly moo.

 

It's been more than 2 years since the last referendum. Enough time for people to change their minds, particularly considering that facts have changed. We now have an entirely different Brexit to the one that was painted for us before the pervious referendum.

 

Sorry, die hard Brexiteers but it's time for another referendum and for the will of the people to be heard.

 

I'm bored therefore will humour you:

 

- Under the fixed term parliament act a normal term of Govt is five years.

 

- May's snap election hoped to increase her majority and break the deadlock @ Stormont and to neuter the SNP. While the latter succeeded her decision generally backfired.

 

- Your 'two years is alright then' shows just how desperate your side has become & completely overlooks the fact that the votes had been counted and a new govt was in place under the same act.

 

The final phase of the 2016 referendum will be implemented shortly. My preference is for no deal & I could not care less if anyone feels otherwise although wouldn't normally go out of my way to say so.

Edited January 14, 2019 by evadgib

[dick dasterdly]

6 hours ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

Apart from all the polls: what do people actually think is a likely outcome?

 

May’s deal will not make it until Wednesday, so we can exclude that. But then what? 

 

(1/3) Parliament will have to decide between a no-deal Brexit and revoking A50. They’re scared of both options so they will want to have some assurance aka a referendum. 

 

(2/3) Should there be a vote of no confidence and a GE, it will be interesting to see what parties will campaign for and against. Should they not articulate a clear position (ie. either remain or no-deal or one of the other options from the EU-menu) but chose to be vague or promise castles in the sky again, the same mess will repeat itself. 

 

It will be interesting to see whether the EU27 will agree on an extension of A50 in such case or let the UK revoke A50. 

 

(3/3) A third option would be an extension of A50, but we can assume that the EU27 will only agree to that if the situation materially changes so that an extension makes sense, aka a referendum.  

 

- - - 

 

The problem is that there is no clear majority for something, only people who are against everything else. This, of course, is a direct result of a referendum that didn’t ask for a clear majority and was open for lots of interpretation and false promises, leading to a situation where everyone feels entitled for what he wants. 

(1/3) Parliament will have to decide between a no-deal Brexit and revoking A50. They’re scared of both options so they will want to have some assurance aka a referendum. 

 

I'm inclined to agree that this is the most likely outcome.....

[tebee]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

What you seem to fail to understand is that by overturning a democratic decision is far from being democratic, democracy doesn't always mean getting it all your own way.

There is an interesting little fact that has emerged today. The Conservatives went into the 2005 election pledging a referendum on whether or not to scrap the Welsh Assembly, obviously *not* accepting the 1997 referendum result which had created it.

 

Recorded in Hansard are Theresa May's own votes against the Government of Wales Bill, after the 1997 referendum where she says 'the result was accepted by both sides. Other Tories voting against the Welsh Assembly after the referendum with Theresa May included Liam Fox, John Redwood, Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1997-12-09/debates/fa23a114-bdf4-4320-a117-cc8e728c195a/GovernmentOfWalesBill#contribution-7ac190a7-939e-4816-bac9-15ff70bca1f1

 

Also, the Prime Minister and other Brexiters voting against setting up the *Scottish parliament* before implementing that 1997 referendum result, despite a much bigger vote in favour.

 

Referendums only become binding when it suites politicians.

[tebee]

 

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, tebee said:

There is an interesting little fact that has emerged today. The Conservatives went into the 2005 election pledging a referendum on whether or not to scrap the Welsh Assembly, obviously *not* accepting the 1997 referendum result which had created it.

 

Recorded in Hansard are Theresa May's own votes against the Government of Wales Bill, after the 1997 referendum where she says 'the result was accepted by both sides. Other Tories voting against the Welsh Assembly after the referendum with Theresa May included Liam Fox, John Redwood, Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1997-12-09/debates/fa23a114-bdf4-4320-a117-cc8e728c195a/GovernmentOfWalesBill#contribution-7ac190a7-939e-4816-bac9-15ff70bca1f1

 

Also, the Prime Minister and other Brexiters voting against setting up the *Scottish parliament* before implementing that 1997 referendum result, despite a much bigger vote in favour.

 

Referendums only become binding when it suites politicians.

"

Referendums only become binding when it suites politicians."

There are many remainers on here that share that same sentiment by saying that referendums are not legally binding, but still want another referendum on the deal/remain. Hypocrites?

[tebee]

7 minutes ago, vogie said:

"

Referendums only become binding when it suites politicians."

There are many remainers on here that share that same sentiment by saying that referendums are not legally binding, but still want another referendum on the deal/remain. Hypocrites?

I am one of those.

But I think we would be better just rescinding  article 50 and going away to think about what we want, rather than having a second referendum.

However I can see the attraction of having a second referendum to confirm if people's views  have changed.

[AlexRich]

11 hours ago, OneEyedPie said:

We had pollsters predicting remain last time and they got it wrong.

Great ... so all Brexiteers on here will welcome that vote if the government's flagship policy fails?

[AlexRich]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

So the democratic process came to a shuddering halt on the morning of the referendum result?!

 

Of course it did not.

 

You are afraid of the now better informed electorate.

Whilst none of them will admit, with their posturing on here, I detect a realisation that we are heading for a second vote ... and the end of their Brexit dream. A democratic vote on the facts on the table, a more informed electorate, and a young demographic that has woken up to the threat to their life options. 

[melvinmelvin]

35 minutes ago, tebee said:

There is an interesting little fact that has emerged today. The Conservatives went into the 2005 election pledging a referendum on whether or not to scrap the Welsh Assembly, obviously *not* accepting the 1997 referendum result which had created it.

 

Recorded in Hansard are Theresa May's own votes against the Government of Wales Bill, after the 1997 referendum where she says 'the result was accepted by both sides. Other Tories voting against the Welsh Assembly after the referendum with Theresa May included Liam Fox, John Redwood, Bill Cash, Bernard Jenkin.

 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1997-12-09/debates/fa23a114-bdf4-4320-a117-cc8e728c195a/GovernmentOfWalesBill#contribution-7ac190a7-939e-4816-bac9-15ff70bca1f1

 

Also, the Prime Minister and other Brexiters voting against setting up the *Scottish parliament* before implementing that 1997 referendum result, despite a much bigger vote in favour.

 

Referendums only become binding when it suites politicians.

so, the PM has a record as an oppressor?

 

[AlexRich]

5 hours ago, GarryP said:

So now that the US electorate is better informed about muggins and what it means to have him as POTUS, they should hold a new election now? It doesn't work like that does it? 

You made the point, without realising it! The US electorate can change their mind. And are highly likely to do so. 

 

The argument on here from some is that we are not allowed to, that democracy is a stopped clock. 

[AlexRich]

4 hours ago, vogie said:

Carrying on the Welsh theme, here is the Cardiff City manager giving his very eloquent opinion.

 

 

 

Another one who won't bear the brunt of Brexit ... and not much going on upstairs.

[JonnyF]

29 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

You made the point, without realising it! The US electorate can change their mind. And are highly likely to do so. 

 

The argument on here from some is that we are not allowed to, that democracy is a stopped clock. 

The US electorate can change their minds AFTER his term of office. You are requesting another vote BEFORE we have enacted the results of the first vote. Surely even a blinkered Remainer can see the difference. 

 

You are welcome to push for a second referendum after we have left.

 

Why should Leavers accept the result of a second referendum when you cannot accept the result of the first? Why should we believe you'd accept defeat the second time when you couldn't handle it the first?

It could go on forever. Best of 3. Best of 5. Best of 7. Unless as I suspect you just want to stop voting as soon as Remain finally wins one of the votes. I guess that is your version of Democracy.  

[nauseus]

53 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

Whilst none of them will admit, with their posturing on here, I detect a realisation that we are heading for a second vote ... and the end of their Brexit dream. A democratic vote on the facts on the table, a more informed electorate, and a young demographic that has woken up to the threat to their life options. 

I detect? Like Clouseau? "Do I detect something in your voice that says I am in disfavor with you?"

[nauseus]

51 minutes ago, AlexRich said:

Another one who won't bear the brunt of Brexit ... and not much going on upstairs.

Now a brain surgeon too! You are clever.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

So all elections have a fixed length? No, if you can hold a general election months apart, you can hold a referendum almost 3 years apart. Unless you are frightened of getting the "wrong" result, of course.

But surely you should implement the decision of the first vote, before holding a 2nd vote, otherwise people could be forgiven in thinking your a bad loser, who selfishly only wants Their way.

 

 

 

[bomber]

23 hours ago, Chartist said:

 

Man this is why I hate you idiots so much, you obviously know absolutely nothing but you've gone on google come up with a couple of charts that you think support your point. Not knowing that a steady rate of inflation is good for the economy and mislabeling it as 3% even though the chart YOU posted shows it's lower.

 

The UK is not a resource poor country we get most of our oil from our North Sea fields.

 

No one cares how many pineapples you can buy in Thailand your analogy is childish, patronising and well just plain wrong. UK manufacturers may have to pay more for materials they import but the 20% reduction in the exchange rate makes their products more attractively priced for the export market, this is supported by the UK's increased manufacturing PMI i.e actual data.

iam getting sick of hearing the 20% reduction in the pounds value will help our exporters,when will you folks realise we import a HUGE amount more than we export,please wake up,this huge deficit will never ever be reversed and has actually widened since the brexit induced 20% drop so that puts your BS to bed,there are very few benefits to any nation having a weak currency,get real man brexit has cost every UK adult £1000-£1500 before its even started,expats £10000 plus

[AlexRich]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

The US electorate can change their minds AFTER his term of office. You are requesting another vote BEFORE we have enacted the results of the first vote. Surely even a blinkered Remainer can see the difference. 

 

You are welcome to push for a second referendum after we have left.

 

Why should Leavers accept the result of a second referendum when you cannot accept the result of the first? Why should we believe you'd accept defeat the second time when you couldn't handle it the first?

It could go on forever. Best of 3. Best of 5. Best of 7. Unless as I suspect you just want to stop voting as soon as Remain finally wins one of the votes. I guess that is your version of Democracy.  

I’m okay with accepting May’s deal, I can at least reconcile May’s deal with what people campaigned for ... control of immigration, no contribution to EU, and a transition agreement, etc. But the most important part for me is that we would leave with a transition deal, a leave that would minimise the economic impact. 

 

What some Brexiteers are trying to engineer is an off the cliff Brexit with no transition straight onto WTO terms. Not one of them campaigned for that ... no prominent Leave politician stated that as the outcome. So how can anybody claim that that outcome is what people voted for? Clearly it was not.

 

So I’m for a democratic vote on what people actually want, and that includes Remain. The vote did not give a minority of Tories carte blanche to ruin our economy. If they believe that was the voters intention they should not object to a second vote. The reason that they strongly object is because they know there is no support for it in the country.

[bomber]

3 hours ago, AlexRich said:

Another one who won't bear the brunt of Brexit ... and not much going on upstairs.

at 70 years of age and a multi millionaire he can afford brexit and the damage it will bring,as could farage and bonking boris

[nauseus]

27 minutes ago, bomber said:

iam getting sick of hearing the 20% reduction in the pounds value will help our exporters,when will you folks realise we import a HUGE amount more than we export,please wake up,this huge deficit will never ever be reversed and has actually widened since the brexit induced 20% drop so that puts your BS to bed,there are very few benefits to any nation having a weak currency,get real man brexit has cost every UK adult £1000-£1500 before its even started,expats £10000 plus

Then it must be time to balance the trade deficit, which will never happen while we are part of the EU.

Edited January 14, 2019 by nauseus

[bomber]

21 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Then it must be time to balance the trade deficit, which will never happen while we are part of the EU.

as if its going to happen with brexit,get real man,wages in the UK means we will never be producing country again,if we drop the minimum wage to £4.00 P/H and slash corporation tax then its possible,can you see this happening? i certainly cannot but you brexiteers do seem to dream up so weird scenario's,maybe it will happen,just when we thought we were going to be the new Singapore we end up being the new India,tommy robinson will be gutted,probably chin the wife again

[nauseus]

43 minutes ago, bomber said:

as if its going to happen with brexit,get real man,wages in the UK means we will never be producing country again,if we drop the minimum wage to £4.00 P/H and slash corporation tax then its possible,can you see this happening? i certainly cannot but you brexiteers do seem to dream up so weird scenario's,maybe it will happen,just when we thought we were going to be the new Singapore we end up being the new India,tommy robinson will be gutted,probably chin the wife again

I can see that it is possible for this to happen, yes. But not if the country is crowded with negatively-minded doomies.

[bomber]

1 hour ago, nauseus said:

I can see that it is possible for this to happen, yes. But not if the country is crowded with negatively-minded doomies.

negative is not the issue,simply being realistic,if you think the UK can compete with countries were workers earn £0.50 - £3.00 P/H then dream on,you brexiteers get madder by the day,no wonder so many are against the idea now,Bonking Boris only makes the newspapers these days because of his new young girlfriend,he isnt even interested in the idea anymore.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, AlexRich said:

I’m okay with accepting May’s deal, I can at least reconcile May’s deal with what people campaigned for ... control of immigration, no contribution to EU, and a transition agreement, etc. But the most important part for me is that we would leave with a transition deal, a leave that would minimise the economic impact. 

 

What some Brexiteers are trying to engineer is an off the cliff Brexit with no transition straight onto WTO terms. Not one of them campaigned for that ... no prominent Leave politician stated that as the outcome. So how can anybody claim that that outcome is what people voted for? Clearly it was not.

 

So I’m for a democratic vote on what people actually want, and that includes Remain. The vote did not give a minority of Tories carte blanche to ruin our economy. If they believe that was the voters intention they should not object to a second vote. The reason that they strongly object is because they know there is no support for it in the country.

Fair enough, except it’s not Brexit. We would not be able to leave, unless our master in Brussels give the O.K. Plus while in the transition period, we would not be able to negotiate trade deals with the other 170 countries in the world.

In other words, similar to 1975, it’s a big conn.

 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by nontabury

[bomber]

1 minute ago, nontabury said:

Fair enough, except it’s not Brexit. We would not be able to leave, unless our master in Brussels give the O.K. Plus while in the transition period, we would not be able to negotiate trade deals with the other 170 countries in the world.

In other words, similar to 1975, it’s a big conn.

all other trade deals will be a pile of <deleted>,another reason so many are against brexit,like it or loathe it the EU is a better option than any african or chinesse deal and i wouldnt touch trump with a barge pole,our brussels masters are our saviour.