I’d be campaigning for a new vote IF the real issues changed.
They haven’t.
The only point in its favour at the moment is that Politicians clearly lied. Well, I am sorry, but that is in their DNA and has always been so (for most of them).
Protest march? Meh, only 700k. 1 million couldn’t change Tony Blair’s mind over Iraq and those lies were much worse than a battle bus.
This is not scientific either, but suspect most who are saying just get on with it from the remain camp do so because they are resigned to the shit that is happening and shit to come…
… not because they have changed their minds or would not welcome a change in direction
Simpler explanation. They’re democrats.
I think that is rather naive - the issues may not have changed such as genuine concerns about immigration etc, but the whole point about the lies especially in this regard is hugely significant… From concerns about demands on resources to jobs etc… all of which was never openly debated with facts - instead we had Farage stocking up bigotry with his Queue posters, and the Sun printing 8 pages on ref day of Sangat violence using pictures that were 18months old - this resonated particularly in the more socially deprived areas where as throughout history immigrants and minorities are easy pickings to blame for…
It’s incredulous that such issues seem so flippantly dismissed as moaning… as if manipulation of a difficult and sensitive issue by the right wing press during a very significant referendum was perfectly acceptable… anyone who believes this campaign of lies did not influence the result is Very naive…
On a related note, @Goatboy, can you make me a Zzz badge please?
In the main, I’m going to use it to arrange my stickier bogies into nice round flickable balls.
On pub drink ups, I plan to :-
- Wear it as a source of pride
- Touch @Cobham-Saint’s face with it
1 Like
I disagree. Policy was changed in order to ensure that Brexit could be achieved. Thus the vote was acted upon. Not every policy has to reach completion before it can be reversed.
The basis of my point lies in rejecting the divisive claim that a second referendum would be undemocratic. I would like to know why a second referendum held years after a previous one has less democratic value? Referenda are not elections of Parliament. Apples and oranges.
1 Like
Agreed. A second referendum does not solve any of the problems. Nevertheless, it might be an opportunity for a more reasoned debate - which might move us beyond the unreasoned sentimentalism we get at the moment.
Please explain why the first vote has more democratic value than the second, years later.
Not sure how much simpler I can state it for it to sink in.
The result of the 1975 referendum has been implemented for 43 years and counting. The views of the 1975 electorate were respected.
Have we left the European Union yet?
I think you’ve spend far too much time on an issue which is blindingly obvious to most.
“It might hive the opportunity for a more reasoned debat”
Oh dear.
Saints might win the EPL…
ANYONE who thinks debate will be possible should read the Fail today.
Debate? It’s just a free for all power grab
There’s no need to be sarcastic. If another vote was had and the same number voted why would the mandate be any less? Seems to me you are the one wilfully ignoring the obvious.
Yeah, it might be a bit optimistic, but the alternative is conceding that it’s ok to just let unreason rule debate. Somehow the country has to move on.
Of course it’s a power grab and the response to that is important.
Again, there is no sarcasm - you’re being over-sensitive.
The question on the ballot was “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union”?
We voted to leave. We have not left.
We’re still paying our membership, still subject to EU law,
This really isn’t brain surgery or rocket science.
How do we think a vote would go if the question was to rejoin on these terms or not?:
https://twitter.com/alanbell_libsol/status/1053927634676125696
Hmm, so there would be no border controls, full freedom of movement for people, no freedom of movement for our currency.
I think a poll on these terms would be an even bigger win for Leave than the old ones.
Where do these zealots come from?
I don’t disagree with any of that. We haven’t left. But it is blindingly obvious that we are in the process of leaving. The first vote hasn’t been ignored. Correct?
Let me put it another way. You say to your kids “hey fam, we’re all going on holiday!”.
You pay, pack, load the car up and go to the airport, only to get there and say “we’re not going anymore”, before returning home.
Would your kids think they actually went on holiday? Or would they feel cheated?
Of course they would and it’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t advocate a second vote. But, to say that the original vote was ignored is factually incorrect. To also say that a second vote under the same conditions would be anti-democratic is also, in my view, incorrect. It would have equal democratic weight… and as I have already said, take us no further toward a solution. Just want the argument to address the reasons for the vote in the first place, not the emotion.
Just to add to the Zzzz factor.
This is the reality of playing petty minded jingoistic games and not bothering to take an active and dominant role in making the EU work.
Separately, It would be interesting to see who among our pro-leave leaders will be better or worse off if Brexit happens - (can anyone provide the stats?)