I am pretty sure of one thing,

if any other european country ever, wants a referendum about yes or not leaving the E.U., a simple majority will not be applied.

 

I am convinced that no country wish to be so divided as the U.K. is as per now.

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

The result............Leave.

Too bad it doesn’t exist in practice. There’s only “Leave without a deal” and “Leave with May’s deal”.

24 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The date of the election could have been easily mandated by Parliament for before the current exit date. 

 

If they Remainers were confident of winning they could have got a majority for Remain and extended themselves and taken power at the same time. But they know they'd lose, so the cowardly anti-democrats blocked the election (as you well know).

Completely disagree with your final sentence. 

 

All johnson has to do is meet the terms of the bill preventing a no deal brexit and he can have his election. 

1 minute ago, soalbundy said:

We don't know if they are quite content, considering what has come to pass I should think that many regret voting leave and would prefer the status quo, of course we could always ask them but I doubt BJ RM and Farage would like that too much.

Yes they could ask them again and would they abide by the decision, of course they would if they got the answer they wanted, if not it would be a case of, maybe just one more or possibly two, infact as many as it takes to get the answer we insist on. 

You hoping that many have changed their mind does not make it so, I think the only regrets that the electorate have is voting in this duplicitious parliament.

5 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

"The prime minister said: “Everyone is going to have to make their own decision. This is not a debate between politicians. It’s a debate for the whole of the country to get involved in and to make their decision"

On this I totally agree.

 

However a GE is absolutely the worst way to decide the outcome of Brexit. What if it results in a hung parliament (very likely)?

 

Also a GE is never a single issue vote. What about those who want to decide which party is likely to deal with their concerns about policing, the NHS, university tuition fees, education and multitude of other issues? What you might end up with is a government that takes Brexit in a direction you agree with but after Brexit is concluded, in the next few months, you would have a government for the following 4 1/2 years that, in your opinion, takes a whole range of issues in totally the wrong direction.

 

A GE is an inappropriate, undemocrat and impractical way of deciding the outcome of Brexit. If the opposition win enough seats to form a coalition they would call for a confirmatory vote to decide the outcome of Brexit. Why not go straight to that? Same as a referendum but make the outcome mandatory. Simple, negotiated deal vs revoke Article 50. Could all be done and dusted in weeks. Let the people decide.

32 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

Yes we understand that but did the people who voted leave want a deal or no deal exit?

They replied 'Leave' to the question asked of them, they were never asked the question "deal or no deal" exit, so it would be a question that is very difficult to answer. You cannot answer a question that hasn't been asked.

11 minutes ago, vogie said:

Yes they could ask them again and would they abide by the decision, of course they would if they got the answer they wanted, if not it would be a case of, maybe just one more or possibly two, infact as many as it takes to get the answer we insist on. 

You hoping that many have changed their mind does not make it so, I think the only regrets that the electorate have is voting in this duplicitious parliament.

Make the enacting of the confirmatory vote mandatory.

 

 

Just now, vogie said:

They replied 'Leave' to the question asked of them, they were never asked the question "deal or no deal" exit, so it would be a question that is very difficult to answer. You cannot answer question that hasn't been asked.

The problem is that this question needs to be asked since what you asked them doesn’t exist in practice. 

1 minute ago, vogie said:

They replied 'Leave' to the question asked of them, they were never asked the question "deal or no deal" exit, so it would be a question that is very difficult to answer. You cannot answer question that hasn't been asked.

Correct, so ask it.

35 minutes ago, Rookiescot said:

If we can organize an election so quickly why cant we organize a referendum with the options deal, no deal or remain.

 

That way the will of the people can be demonstrated and acted upon.

The will of the people would only be acted upon if the vote was Remain.

 

Therefore, no point in a second vote as it would not be respected when Remain loses again.

 

24 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Who is scarred of listening to better informed voters?

Jo Swinson.

 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/07/23/lib-dem-leader-jo-swinson-says-would-vote-against-brexit-even/

 

4 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

On this I totally agree.

 

However a GE is absolutely the worst way to decide the outcome of Brexit. What if it results in a hung parliament (very likely)?

 

Also a GE is never a single issue vote. What about those who want to decide which party is likely to deal with their concerns about policing, the NHS, university tuition fees, education and multitude of other issues? What you might end up with is a government that takes Brexit in a direction you agree with but after Brexit is concluded, in the next few months, you would have a government for the following 4 1/2 years that, in your opinion, takes a whole range of issues in totally the wrong direction.

 

A GE is an inappropriate, undemocrat and impractical way of deciding the outcome of Brexit. If the opposition win enough seats to form a coalition they would call for a confirmatory vote to decide the outcome of Brexit. Why not go straight to that? Same as a referendum but make the outcome mandatory. Simple, negotiated deal vs revoke Article 50. Could all be done and dusted in weeks. Let the people decide.

I agree, in principle, particularly the other reasons why people vote for a party. However, should it come to a vote and a 'negotiated deal' was the outcome, we're back in the same situation that the tories have been in for the last three years. May's deal was rejected. What's going to change?  A compromise? Corbyn would stay in the single market and customs union, which is the most sensible course of action, IMO.

19 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I am pretty sure of one thing,

if any other european country ever, wants a referendum about yes or not leaving the E.U., a simple majority will not be applied.

 

I am convinced that no country wish to be so divided as the U.K. is as per now.

Yes, the lesson is if you want a simple yes/ no response from the people make sure the consequences are clearly spelt out. Also have a minimum of 60% approval to pass, plus have a second referendum to confirm 2 years later.

27 minutes ago, vogie said:

The result............Leave.

                                               

19 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Completely disagree with your final sentence. 

 

All johnson has to do is meet the terms of the bill preventing a no deal brexit and he can have his election. 

Really?

 

Labour has been calling for an election for 2 years and then when offered, refused one. Why should anyone believe the cowards will allow one this time if Johnson requests an extension? Corbyn changes his mind with the wind.

5 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

The will of the people would only be acted upon if the vote was Remain.

 

Therefore, no point in a second vote as it would not be respected when Remain loses again.

 

As Remain is the best deal for Britain, I would also vote for that conclusion. But I do not make decisions, only parliament can do that. 

3 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I agree, in principle, particularly the other reasons why people vote for a party. However, should it come to a vote and a 'negotiated deal' was the outcome, we're back in the same situation that the tories have been in for the last three years. May's deal was rejected. What's going to change?  A compromise? Corbyn would stay in the single market and customs union, which is the most sensible course of action, IMO.

Obviously that would be decided before the vote. If you want to do it quickly, May's deal or a variant that the EU approves. No need for parliament to vote on it. Personally, I've never understood why Brexiteers were so against it, I doubt that we would have got better. All Brexiteers say is BRINO, without explanation, just rhetoric an expletives.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Really?

 

Labour has been calling for an election for 2 years and then when offered, refused one. Why should anyone believe the cowards will allow one this time if Johnson requests an extension? Corbyn changes his mind with the wind.

The factor that has changed is johnson is now pm.

 

He is a compulsive liar and completely untrustworthy. 

 

Once a deal is in place or a definite extension is in place then there can be an election. 

Just now, stephenterry said:

As Remain is the best deal for Britain, I would also vote for that conclusion. But I do not make decisions, only parliament can do that. 

Huge difference. You are a member of the public and will obviously vote according to your opinion. Whether you accept the result or not makes little difference.

 

Jo Swinson is leader of the lib dems. She should respect the democratic vote of the people. She calls for a second referendum and then says she would not respect the vote if she lost. Do you not understand that is a problem for an elected politician?   

2 hours ago, brucec64 said:

Parliament has 3-4 more years to go before an election is required. Are you requesting a do-over because you don't like to parliament that was elected in the last election? Seems like you are the losing side not consenting to a public vote. How is this different from a second referendum? That is true irony. 

If as a party you had a manifesto and now you change it, isn't it only right you give the people the choice to vote in an election, as you have changed the goal posts and stance, on what you as an MP came to power, in their constituents.

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The factor that has changed is johnson is now pm.

 

He is a compulsive liar and completely untrustworthy. 

 

Once a deal is in place or a definite extension is in place then there can be an election. 

Excuses for cowardice are particularly odious.

1 minute ago, DannyCarlton said:

Obviously that would be decided before the vote. If you want to do it quickly, May's deal or a variant that the EU approves. No need for parliament to vote on it. Personally, I've never understood why Brexiteers were so against it, I doubt that we would have got better. All Brexiteers say is BRINO, without explanation, just rhetoric an expletives.

A point of correction - parliament would have to vote on it. And I agree with Brino - so what?  The man in the street couldn't give a toss - that's for the government to sort out, not him.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Huge difference. You are a member of the public and will obviously vote according to your opinion. Whether you accept the result or not makes little difference.

 

Jo Swinson is leader of the lib dems. She should respect the democratic vote of the people. She calls for a second referendum and then says she would not respect the vote if she lost. Do you not understand that is a problem for an elected politician?   

Again make the outcome mandatory. Don't give her a choice.

1 minute ago, Laughing Gravy said:

If as a party you had a manifesto and now you change it, isn't it only right you give the people the choice to vote in an election, as you have changed the goal posts and stance, on what you as an MP came to power, in their constituents.

None of the parties changed their manifestos. All manifestos clearly said to leave with a deal (CON, LAB) or not at all (some others). 

2 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Huge difference. You are a member of the public and will obviously vote according to your opinion. Whether you accept the result or not makes little difference.

 

Jo Swinson is leader of the lib dems. She should respect the democratic vote of the people. She calls for a second referendum and then says she would not respect the vote if she lost. Do you not understand that is a problem for an elected politician?   

But there hasn't been a democratic vote in favor of no-deal.

1 minute ago, JonnyF said:

Huge difference. You are a member of the public and will obviously vote according to your opinion. Whether you accept the result or not makes little difference.

 

Jo Swinson is leader of the lib dems. She should respect the democratic vote of the people. She calls for a second referendum and then says she would not respect the vote if she lost. Do you not understand that is a problem for an elected politician?   

No. She has the democratic right to oppose Brexit. Particularly a no-deal version. It would be up to her electorate to vote against her if they didn't agree.

Just now, DannyCarlton said:

Again make the outcome mandatory. Don't give her a choice.

Leaving was mandatory after article 50 was enacted. Still haven't left.

1 minute ago, tebee said:

But there hasn't been a democratic vote in favor of no-deal.

Not required. Leaving with No Deal is Leaving.

2 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

Again make the outcome mandatory. Don't give her a choice.

That would be up to parliament to decide.

19 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

A point of correction - parliament would have to vote on it. And I agree with Brino - so what?  The man in the street couldn't give a toss - that's for the government to sort out, not him.

So what does BRINO mean to you? What part of May's deal do you particularly object to?

 

If the man in the street doesn't give a toss, why didn't he let the government decide wheter to trigger Article 50? Why bother him with a stupid referendum? Actually, doing that would be much more in line with parliamentary democracy which is what's supposed to govern the UK.