Keeping up with the latest Brexit News

Which option would you prefer?

  • Leave with no deal

    Votes: 122 74.4%
  • Leave with the WA without the backstop

    Votes: 42 25.6%

  • Total voters
    164
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
A second referendum would not be anti-democratic. This line of reasoning is absurd and is used repeatedly, usually in conjunction with a reference to Ireland being “forced” to vote again on the Lisbon treaty until they have the “correct” answer. That is simply untrue and a complete misrepresentation of why Ireland voted for a second time.

The reason Ireland did hold a second referendum is because the first time around, the explanation of what the treaty was doing was so poor that nobody had any idea what they were voting for. Fear of the unknown led people to reject it rather than vote yes to something they did not understand. This was fed back, and a great deal of effort was spent bringing clarity to the treaty. The subsequent referendum was comprehensively in favour of the treaty, because second time around, people had the knowledge needed to make a more informed decision. The reaction among my family and friends once they understood what they were voting for went from belligerent and hostile at a perceived attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, to accepting and a bit sheepish that everyone had got so worked up in the first place.

This is all a matter of public record but conveniently gets ignored when trying to score points against the EU. It also translates directly to the position some determined leavers are taking with respect to a second referendum on Brexit. Three years down the road and with people much more informed about what they’re voting for, it’s not unreasonable at all for some people to support another referendum. There would be absolutely nothing undemocratic about having a second referendum on Brexit, and if the more extreme leavers have the courage of their convictions, they should have absolutely no qualms about another vote, as the result would only cement their position.

(Personally I don’t think there’s much point in a second referendum because even if Remain won, it would just lead to more protracted infighting and keep Farage relevant for another generation...ugh. For me, the UK has made its bed and now needs to lie in it, come what may. I’m just sick of people suggesting that a further people’s vote would be undemocratic.)

Let's have a referendum every 3 months then.
That way as new information is learned we can continue to make informed decisions. :rolleyes:
 
Let's have a referendum every 3 months then.
That way as new information is learned we can continue to make informed decisions. :rolleyes:
Take anything to an extreme and you can make it sound ridiculous. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a reasonable middle ground.
 
Once in a lifetime sounded reasonable :)
 
A second referendum would not be anti-democratic. This line of reasoning is absurd and is used repeatedly, usually in conjunction with a reference to Ireland being “forced” to vote again on the Lisbon treaty until they have the “correct” answer. That is simply untrue and a complete misrepresentation of why Ireland voted for a second time.

The reason Ireland did hold a second referendum is because the first time around, the explanation of what the treaty was doing was so poor that nobody had any idea what they were voting for. Fear of the unknown led people to reject it rather than vote yes to something they did not understand. This was fed back, and a great deal of effort was spent bringing clarity to the treaty. The subsequent referendum was comprehensively in favour of the treaty, because second time around, people had the knowledge needed to make a more informed decision. The reaction among my family and friends once they understood what they were voting for went from belligerent and hostile at a perceived attempt to pull the wool over their eyes, to accepting and a bit sheepish that everyone had got so worked up in the first place.

This is all a matter of public record but conveniently gets ignored when trying to score points against the EU. It also translates directly to the position some determined leavers are taking with respect to a second referendum on Brexit. Three years down the road and with people much more informed about what they’re voting for, it’s not unreasonable at all for some people to support another referendum. There would be absolutely nothing undemocratic about having a second referendum on Brexit, and if the more extreme leavers have the courage of their convictions, they should have absolutely no qualms about another vote, as the result would only cement their position.

(Personally I don’t think there’s much point in a second referendum because even if Remain won, it would just lead to more protracted infighting and keep Farage relevant for another generation...ugh. For me, the UK has made its bed and now needs to lie in it, come what may. I’m just sick of people suggesting that a further people’s vote would be undemocratic.)

Jesus H Christ, talk about gullible, so Ireland was not threatened by the EU if the referendum was not run again with a different result.
 
I was surprised the Letwin motion passed by as many as 16. I thought even with the DUP it'd only be by a few. Guess there weren't as many Labour rebels as the government had hoped.

6, so the usual suspects plus 1, I think more would back the deal tbh but it's clear the hoc does not trust him as far as they could throw him, today they where constantly referencing his comments from the DUP conference last year. The government have done themselves no favours with a complete lack of transparancy. Maybe if they where open from the beginning instead of faffing with prorogation and refusing to answer questions then they would have had a few more on board by now
 
It looks like the votes are there for a second referendum, and if we do have one, then it will have to be Remain vs Boris Johnson's Deal. Which I have no problem with, although some people have shifted into regretting voting leave I'm not sure it's enough to see the 2016 result reversed.

If there is to be a second referendum, then I hope they make it legally binding this time.

Why should remain be on the ballot, again.. Remain has already had it's go and lost.
 
And now on the BBC, your local News and Weather:

Local MP Oliver Letwin...

Are they joking?
 
Let's have a referendum every 3 months then.
That way as new information is learned we can continue to make informed decisions. :rolleyes:

The only (and I mean only) reason that leavers don't want another referendum is because it has reasonably good chance of giving them an answer they don't want. All this hyperbole about it being undemocratic is ridiculous. In reality, another vote would be the perfect expression of democracy. You asked for it > we prepared it > are you sure you want it now you know what it is?

That said, I don't think it would be particularly healthy to remain now, because as @kav says, the whole argument won't go away, it'll just rumble on for years to come.

I think the only way to prove that it's not a good idea to leave the EU, is to actually leave the EU.

It'll probably speed up the process of us adopting the Euro anyway. :thumbsup:
 
Once in a lifetime sounded reasonable :)

I said myself I don’t support a second referendum. Just that it is bollocks to claim a second referendum would be undemocratic. Clearly touched a nerve though:

Jesus H Christ, talk about gullible, so Ireland was not threatened by the EU if the referendum was not run again with a different result.
Highlighting the ridiculous is very easy where remain is concerned.
 
I said myself I don’t support a second referendum. Just that it is bollocks to claim a second referendum would be undemocratic. Clearly touched a nerve though:

Seems I did touch a nerve.

Yep gullible. The people do not understand what they voted for so we best highlight the good bits bits bury the bad bits and we'll get the result we want.
 
Who is going to take any notice of you?. Parliament have made clear that it doesn't matter what the people want, the UK will not be allowed to exit the EU.

I am sure that it would matter (more) if the result was 70/30 or even 60/40.
 
Seems I did touch a nerve.

Yep gullible. The people do not understand what they voted for so we best highlight the good bits bits bury the bad bits and we'll get the result we want.
I’m aware of your position, definitely wouldn’t expect anything I say to sway you. :smashin:
 
Let's have a referendum every 3 months then.
That way as new information is learned we can continue to make informed decisions. :rolleyes:

What is the problem with that?
As posted many times it would not legally binding but may form the basis for policy changes if the message is clear.
 
If remainers want a second vote we could change it to 'Bremain' then they may get the result they want... assuming they can be arsed to vote this time, instead of trotting off to Glastonbury, like they did last time.
 
I love being patronised by remainers, I get a warm fuzzy feeling.

To be fair - It's very difficult to avoid appearing patronising when speaking to many leave voters.

During the run up and immediate aftermath of the referendum, I spoke to many leave voters who clearly had no concept of what they were voting for beyond the soundbites that Farrage and the tabloids fed them. They had/still have no understanding of what leaving is/was/could be. Conversations often felt like the conversations I had with my son when he was little.

That might sound quite offensive, but I can assure you, its not supposed to be.
 
To be fair - It's very difficult to avoid appearing patronising when speaking to many leave voters.

During the run up and immediate aftermath of the referendum, I spoke to many leave voters who clearly had no concept of what they were voting for beyond the soundbites that Farrage and the tabloids fed them. They had/still have no understanding of what leaving is/was/could be. Conversations often felt like the conversations I had with my son went he was little.

That might sound quite offensive, but I can assure you, its not supposed to be.


The problem with discussing conversations like this is it just get leavers backs up, understandably so.

I've also experienced similar conversations.

But they're all anecdotal and don't really prove anything.

By the way one of the smartest people I know is a leaver.
 
The problem with discussing conversations like this is it just get leavers backs up, understandably so.

I've also experienced similar conversations.

But they're all anecdotal and don't really prove anything.

By the way one of the smartest people I know is a leaver.

I know some very smart people who are leavers too. They have their reasons - some of them perfectly valid if you look at it on a personal level.

We've seen on this thread that there are plenty of leave voters who have a good understanding of the EU and what leaving means. However, in the general population, I would say that the understanding is fairly low on both sides of the argument. I'm not sure who to blame for that - it's probably just apathy on behalf of the voters and the general expectation by government that the vote was going to go their way.
 
To be fair - It's very difficult to avoid appearing patronising when speaking to many leave voters.

During the run up and immediate aftermath of the referendum, I spoke to many leave voters who clearly had no concept of what they were voting for beyond the soundbites that Farrage and the tabloids fed them. They had/still have no understanding of what leaving is/was/could be. Conversations often felt like the conversations I had with my son when he was little.

That might sound quite offensive, but I can assure you, its not supposed to be.

That really made me laugh out loud.

Thanks.
 
To be fair - It's very difficult to avoid appearing patronising when speaking to many leave voters.

During the run up and immediate aftermath of the referendum, I spoke to many leave voters who clearly had no concept of what they were voting for beyond the soundbites that Farrage and the tabloids fed them. They had/still have no understanding of what leaving is/was/could be. Conversations often felt like the conversations I had with my son when he was little.

That might sound quite offensive, but I can assure you, its not supposed to be.


I don't doubt that at all.

What I also don't doubt is that for every leaver who had no grasp, is a remainer that had also had no grasp of what voting to remain, would/will eventually lead to.
 
I know some very smart people who are leavers too. They have their reasons - some of them perfectly valid if you look at it on a personal level.

We've seen on this thread that there are plenty of leave voters who have a good understanding of the EU and what leaving means. However, in the general population, I would say that the understanding is fairly low on both sides of the argument. I'm not sure who to blame for that - it's probably just apathy on behalf of the voters and the general expectation by government that the vote was going to go their way.

You and Mevlock need your own show, your material is hysterical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom