Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kevin Wood]

The only reason we got a referendum was to keep UKIP at bay. Cameron was shit scared of them and it was his cunning plan.
Where is he again? 

Presumably hanging out the front end of a luckless pig somewhere. 

Or milking the "hey! I used to be prime minister"* gravy train like B. Liar.





* - I was a waste of space, mind...

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.

I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.

This possibility just makes it worse.

If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.

If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.

I say chaps......I think we find ourselves in a tight spot.

[LC0112G]

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.

I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.

This possibility just makes it worse.

If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.

If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.

Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.

If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.

That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.

I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.

I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.

This possibility just makes it worse.

If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.

If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.

Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.

If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.

That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.

I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.

Team leave will say they have already won the referendum  (and in my view they did) and there will be an impasse, possibly followed by civil war

The reason we had an IN/OUT vote was to make it easy for the great unwashed to get their head around it. Start introducing extra "my brain hurts" information like WTO  and all that involves and you'll be opening a can of worms. Total confusion will follow.   

[LC0112G]

So if we have BrexitRef2, why not BrexitRef3 or 4 or 5 etc etc just to make sure or just in case people have changed their minds?  After all that's democracy in practice right? 

Ah no, that would be silly!    Especially if BrexitRef2 produced the 'right result'! 

It's a legitimate concern, but it's not silly at all. After all we've already had 2 BREXIT referenda. One in 1974, and the one in 2016. What arbitrary time limit between referenda on the same subject would you suggest? We nominally have General Elections every 5 years, but should a govt fall then in principle we could have one every few months. People can and do change their minds.

I don't like referenda one bit - we elect politicians to try and understand all the issues and take the important decisions. Asking the public a question that they do not and can not understand all the implications is daft. If you do, then IMV you should require a lot more than a simple majority to change the status quo - even more so if it's effectively a change to the 'constitution'.

This possibility just makes it worse.

If people do change their mind and more people vote remain then 'team leave' will insist on making it the best of 3.....or 5.....or 7.

If people didn't change their mind then we'd have had the same government in office for the past hundred years.

Yes I'd expect team leave to continue campaigning.

If people vote the same way as before then 'team leave' will win again proving there was no point to a second vote.

That's only true if the question is the same as before. If it's an explicit choice between Hard/WTO Brexit and Remain on the same terms as before then it's a different question, with options the public understand better now, and can be delivered by the Govt (assuming remain is an option). If team leave win a second time with such clear options then few would quibble.

I've read in various places that the Irish govt have already asked the ECJ for a ruling on if Art50 is revocable or not. Can't find anything listed in the ECJ schedule though. If the answer to that becomes important then the ECJ can expedite a decisions in 4 months apparently. End of November then.

Team leave will say they have already won the referendum  (and in my view they did) and there will be an impasse,

They did win, on the original question. The discussion now is what does leave mean. And once that is known, do the majority of the public still want it?

possibly followed by civil war

You know someone has lost the argument as soon as the civil war card is played. It's similar to the Hitler card.

The reason we had an IN/OUT vote was to make it easy for the great unwashed to get their head around it. Start introducing extra "my brain hurts" information like WTO  and all that involves and you'll be opening a can of worms. Total confusion will follow.   

Yes - the my brain hurts issue is exactly why there shouldn't have been a referendum in the first place. But we are where we are.

[STEMO]

From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?

[Sir Tigger KC]

The discussion now is what does leave mean. And once that is known, do the majority of the public still want it?

The problem with another BREXIT referendum as I see it, is that those campaigning for a 'People's Vote' want the question loaded heavily in favour of remaining in the EU, and as discussed earlier they might not get the 'Remain' that they thought they were getting, ie the status quo. 

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Yes. I don't recall the general public insisting we have a referendum. It was the usual suspects. The gobby element that is always causing trouble in the Tory party, along with Shouty Nige.

Cameron could have told them all to f*uck off but he didn't.

As you say. We are where we are.

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?

Because your vote matters..........except it doesn't.

[LC0112G]

From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?

Which just makes it more likely that people who have the opposite beliefs/opinions to you win.

[STEMO]

From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?

Which just makes it more likely that people who have the opposite beliefs/opinions to you win.

No. I've already used my vote to 'win'. Why should I have to vote again? Before you say 'because you didn't fully understand the ramifications', well, does anyone who votes in a general election? Do political parties stick to their manifestos?
You vote and you live with the consequences. You can't eject, say, Labour in favour of the tories because you didn't understand that they were a bunch of Trots when you voted for them.
I'll live with my decision, the turncoats can do as they please.

[LC0112G]

No. I've already used my vote to 'win'. Why should I have to vote again?

Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign. You have to try and persuade enough of them do what you want - you can't make them. If voting once isn't enough then perhaps twice will be. Or thrice. Regardless of whether you vote for them or not, they are doing things in your name. Or, put another way (accepting this is basically a civil war/Hitler faux-pas) ....

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

You can't eject, say, Labour in favour of the tories because you didn't understand that they were a bunch of Trots when you voted for them.

Well, you can, at the next GE although it may be 5 years till you get the chance.

[STEMO]

From a personal perspective, if another referendum is called I won't vote in it. Neither will I ever vote in any political contest again, be it local or national.
What's the point?

I repeat, from my nice, warm entrenched position.

[STEMO]

I, personally, don't believe there will be a second referendum. 

[Sir Tigger KC]

Because, as I keep saying, Parliament is Sovereign.

Except that it isn't, as it's subservient to the EU. 

The people voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty, but it doesn't appear to want it!