Brexit Voters who Shouldn't Have

octatonic

bodhi

I'd not be opposed to a second referendum if at the time people will be able to vote armed with actual facts about actual consequences.

I think those who used the vote as a protest against the system will reconsider, and that the younger generation will show up in their droves to take part - I really do.  Suddenly everyone seems to have switched on to politics.

I guess that would make us look very foolish, which wouldn't strengthen our position in the EU at all.  Which could backfire somewhere down the line.

But this is so very interesting:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/27/stop-brexit-mp-vote-referendum-members-parliament-act-europe

"Our democracy does not allow, much less require, decision-making by referendum. That role belongs to the representatives of the people and not to the people themselves. Democracy has never meant the tyranny of the simple majority, much less the tyranny of the mob (otherwise, we might still have capital punishment). Democracy entails an elected government, subject to certain checks and balances such as the common law and the courts, and an executive ultimately responsible to parliament, whose members are entitled to vote according to conscience and common sense."

"Or it may simply be that a majority of MPs, mindful of their constitutional duty to do what is best for Britain, conscientiously decide that it is best to remain."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-loophole-eu-referendum-mps-law-legal-legislation-constitution-a7105181.html

"MPs are entitled to vote against it and are bound to vote against it, if they think it's in Britain's best interest [to vote that way]."

And I understand that the majority of MPs were opposed to leaving.

Anyway - all speculation at this point.  If we have to just get on with it in the end, we will.

chrispy108

bodhi said:

I'd not be opposed to a second referendum if at the time people will be able to vote armed with actual facts about actual consequences.

But it isn't about facts, it's about your long-term view on how you want the UK to be run.

I keep hearing "facts" from people, but it's not possible to predict what will happen, it's just too big a change.

Getting annoyed by people keep saying I'm a monster for voting leave because the stock market dropped a bit the following day. Perhaps I voted based on what I think will be best long-term, not based on my short-term finances.

I love the irony of lefties attacking leavers who chose their long-term beliefs over short-term finances... (Like this one going round Facebook http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-peter-hargreaves-lansdown-leave-eu-referendum-share-price-a7108871.html)

skankdelvar

Any number of people will come up with any number of 'reasons' why there should be another referendum. 

Underpinning all these 'reasons' is the real reason: 'Because somebody on the internet is wrong'.

Anyway, it's not going to happen. The petition's utterly suspect, no politician would seek another referendum, the EU wouldn't accept the result and the majority of the people don't want it. Some click-bait Guardian journos and a minority of the electorate want it but nobody else cares for the idea.

So that's that. Move on - nothing to see here.

axisus

I'm thinking that we should have a referendum to decide whether to have another referendum.

bodhi

A second referendum would actually strengthen our democracy.  When the terms of our exit have been negotiated, people will be able to redeem themselves (either way) by voting on actual outcomes and consequences, not on vague promises and threats or even outright lies.

Note that I'm not advocating either leaving or remaining when I say this.  But I'm absolutely advocating informed decisions.  Or at least a bit more informed than has recently been the case - by the looks of it.

Ok, I'll shut my pie hole now.

Danny1969

I didn't vote because I truly believe I don't understand enough about it to vote. I believe to fully understand the consequences either way would require a hell of a lot of research, weeks or months probably, who's got the time ?

Your average guy \ gal in the street probably knows about as much about the consequences of Brexit as they do the consequences of choosing a suitable switching transistor for an SMPS . But they went ahead and did it anyway !

mellowsun

I think this first referendum has demonstrated conclusively why referenda for questions of anything more important than naming a boat are a bad idea.

So there should be no second one!

As said above, Parliament should vote on it and decide how to proceed.

TheMarlin

I'm sick to death of these Whitney Brexit threads. It's done, don't believe all the negative PR. Move on.
Onward and upward.

John_P

Sorry but I disagree. The issues relating to sovereignty and the future of the EU are big enough to warrant letting the public have their say imo.

I can see your point that MPs should be more informed than the general public but I don't take that for granted.

I might have missed it but i didn't see anyone arguing against a public vote before the referendum.

littlegreenman

John_P said:

Sorry but I disagree. The issues relating to sovereignty and the future of the EU are big enough to warrant letting the public have their say imo.

I can see your point that MPs should be more informed than the general public but I don't take that for granted.

I might have missed it but i didn't see anyone arguing against a public vote before the referendum.

Quite a lot of us thought that it was a far too complicated subject to put to a simple Yes/No vote, but they did it anyway.

"Caveat emptor" was posted, "do your research" to the general public was urged. But very few bothered. And most of the people I work with are now complaining that they weren't informed!

digitalscream

John_P said:

I might have missed it but i didn't see anyone arguing against a public vote before the referendum.

You very much did. There were a few of us on here arguing exactly that over the last 6 months or so, and I saw plenty on Facebook.

In any case...no second referendum, just leave it to the MPs to kill it in Parliament, say "haha...populations are stupid" to the EU guys and move on.

The way I understand it, even a three-line whip probably wouldn't be able to force it through - feelings are strong enough that they're content to lose their positions over this and the attendant issues. Equally, though, that means that we'll have no more clue as to which way such a vote would go than we did about the referendum until it was over.

Fretwired

I think a second referendum which generated a different result would lead to serious violence on the streets. The government said they'd abide by the decision of the British people - this is now about trust. If the government thinks we should remain they should man up, say so and remain and take the consequences at the ballot box. Another referendum would be too divisive IMHO.

Let's remain calm and see what happens next. I can see referendum fever sweeping Europe which may get real reform ... I'm willing to bet Junker's on borrowed time.

skankdelvar

Fretwired said:

Let's remain calm and see what happens next. I can see referendum fever sweeping Europe which may get real reform ... I'm willing to bet Junker's on borrowed time.

The Eastern 'Visegrad' group of Hungary, Poland, Czechs and Slovaks are after his head. The Spanish are desperate to avoid losing Catalonia so Juncker entertaining Ms Sturgeon today will have pissed them off. The Germans already have their doubts. Italy thinks he's a bit of a nob ('Un gran nobbo' - Mario Lanza).

The Pope definitely has it in for the pixilated Luxemburger. His Holiness has put his hardest cardinals on the job and offered a $250,000 bounty

About Juncker's only friends are the perfidious French. Unfortunately for him, the poisonous little skunk is about to run straight into Marine Le Pen and her thigh-booted cohorts. 

Pouf! Juncker est fini!

Clarky

bodhi said:

A second referendum would actually strengthen our democracy.  When the terms of our exit have been negotiated, people will be able to redeem themselves (either way) by voting on actual outcomes and consequences, not on vague promises and threats or even outright lies.

Note that I'm not advocating either leaving or remaining when I say this.  But I'm absolutely advocating informed decisions.  Or at least a bit more informed than has recently been the case - by the looks of it.

Ok, I'll shut my pie hole now.

I don't think that's possible

to trigger the process to get to the final exit terms you invoke article 50

once you've invoked that it's a one way trip out of the EU that cannot be stopped

the only way to remain in the EU is for the UK gov to not act upon the referendum result because they do not deem it as being in the best interests of the UK, and so do not invoke article 50 at all

the real prob is that someone has to lose.. lose face or whatever..

by not acting upon the 'will of the people' the gov [Tories in particular] will be committing political suicide..

also, by not acting on it, the UK will look weak and pretty silly to the EU saying 'we've had a think and changed our mind'..

the Juncker's Clan will have a fkn field day.. I doubt that'll go well of the UK..

by acting on it, the EU cannot go easy on the UK for fear of triggering more EU states leaving

and both sides have to give a show of strength, so both have to be convincing to their respective 'people' that the final deal struck was in their best interests so they can say "we won"..

and so now both the UK and the EU find themselves in this really difficult political position

solving this without one side screwing the other and without screwing the economics, whilst trying not to incur the wrath of the leave voters and somehow not totally screw the Tory party will need a solution that is nothing short of some sort of diplomatic / political masterpiece..

there are just so many parts to this that all pull in different directions

a phrase from the movie Snatch springs to mind: "and now…. we are fkd… proper fkd"

my solution for this would be [I'll no doubt get slated for this..] but here goes anyway:

the gov says screw the result and does not invoke article 50

Juncker gets to strut around a bit for bringing the big bad UK to heel with the UK looks a bit stupid for a while, but that'll wear off soon enough and at least the big money keeps coming in [which is what really matters to the fellas at the top globally]..

in the process of this, the UK manages to get the EU to take this vote as a serious shot across the bow from the good hard working folk of the UK which in turn leads them to focus on some sort of meaningful reform that'll mean something sensible to all discontented European citizens that also want exit referenda - so at least the Tories can claim some sort of victory..

the Tories then either:

- take it on the chin and get massacred at the next election for going against the will of the people [but this requires a strong opposition and so Labour will need to get their sht together pretty quick… and of course promise not to screw the economy like they usually do]

- landslide the next election because they can claim they did a knight in shining armour job by managing to prevent both the EU and the UK from breaking up, whilst ensuring that the money keeps flowing, jobs across the UK are saved from moving to the continent etc..

edit: just heading out now to get my kevlar jacket and reacto-peril shades

skankdelvar

Well, we can panic and envisage doom and all poo our pants on FaceBook.

Or we can get all weepy and 'Princess Diana: How Will We Ever Live Without You'? (Quite easily, as it turned out)

Or we can stroke our chins and try to come up with all sorts of convoluted plans and face-saving measures and post them on theinternet.

Or we could just invoke Article 50, let the civil servants get on with negotiating some sort of mutually beneficial arrangement with the EU and go have a nice time playing, buying and selling guitars. 

Simplest solution really.

Nitefly

This Article 50 malarkey - won't whoever is PM next have to ask Parliament for their approval before the trigger is pulled?

Emp_Fab

The thing is, all these rules, any of them, can be changed with enough will (and the consent of the other members) - so if they all want the UK to stay, then they will do whatever it takes to rewrite the rules to make it able for the UK to stay.  Everything is changeable.

Clarky

Emp_Fab said:

The thing is, all these rules, any of them, can be changed with enough will (and the consent of the other members) - so if they all want the UK to stay, then they will do whatever it takes to rewrite the rules to make it able for the UK to stay.  Everything is changeable if there's good profit in it.

fixed

ICBM

Nitefly said:

This Article 50 malarkey - won't whoever is PM next have to ask Parliament for their approval before the trigger is pulled?

Yes.

The European Communities Act of 1972 will have to be repealed first.

Parliament simply needs to vote that down, reminding everyone that the referendum was purely advisory, and that they're acting in the national interest.