Also I'm inclined to make the UK and its economy a sacrificial lamb so that other EU countries can see what the cataclysmic results of leaving the EU would be. Ideally we're looking at Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation here, possibly crossed with parts of the landmass randomly sinking into the ocean.

I didn't say there was an alternative. I stated that democracy is over rated.

 

It may well be the best we have but it's still deeply flawed.

Again I wonder why you are scared of my comment.

 

I've explained why - because it sets a dangerous precedent of MP's ignoring election results they don't like!

 

Also I'm inclined to make the UK and its economy a sacrificial lamb so that other EU countries can see what the cataclysmic results of leaving the EU would be. Ideally we're looking at Zimbabwe-style hyperinflation here, possibly crossed with parts of the landmass randomly sinking into the ocean.

 

Is that a direct quote from Project Fear? :teresa:

 

I've explained why - because it sets a dangerous precedent of MP's ignoring election results they don't like!

 

Why would there even be elections in a non-democratic system? Have you not heard of dictatorships? :D

I have been saying since Cameron first promised a referendum a few years ago that there should be a second vote if the first vote was to leave the EU. That second vote should be held after negotiations on the terms of withdrawal had been completed. At least that would mean that people should have a better idea of what they were voting for.

 

Unfortunately, that is looking unlikely at the moment. Once Article 50 has been invoked, the process is irreversible. The UK would have to reapply for entry, presumably accepting the euro as part of that process. At the moment some EU leaders say they don't want to start talks until Article 50 has been invoked. I hope those leaders see sense and agree to some discussions before the irreversible process starts.

I said have a general election as the Labour Party can put a second referendum in their manifesto if they want.

I think there is easily a way out of it, but they will leave it as long as possible. It would be by another democratic means of course, but it would surely leave us in a much worse place. Facts are facts, the campaigns were both a less, but the Leave campaign was horrific. Unregulated and full of complete and utter lies to scare people. Never mind Project Fear, the Leave campaign was pretty much all that to a tee.

 

We're going to come to a conclusion that is most likely the logic of leaving the EU without actually leaving the EU. Immigration won't change and we will have access to the single market. Only we now hold no power in the EU and they are free to shit on us accordingly. The country may have (just) voted to leave, but just as many people almost wanted to stay in Europe, so we're likely to see even more moaning from the Leave side when they don't get what they wanted.

 

We have just caused economic uncertainty because people think we a divine right to rule the world as we please. When nothing is really going to change, we just lose power over vetoing any laws.

I didn't say there was an alternative. I stated that democracy is over rated.

 

It may well be the best we have but it's still deeply flawed.

Again I wonder why you are scared of my comment.

 

"Democracy is the worst type of government, apart from all the rest"

The thing about people saying they voted Leave and have been lied to is that many people did listen to the remain side quoting facts from the IMF and many other establishment institutions but you know what they ignored them because they don't trust them or care anymore because these are the same institutions who didn't predict a lot of other recessions etc - people voted Leave because their communities have changed utterly socially,culturally and economically since the 1970s and no one really asked them for a say!

I have been saying since Cameron first promised a referendum a few years ago that there should be a second vote if the first vote was to leave the EU. That second vote should be held after negotiations on the terms of withdrawal had been completed. At least that would mean that people should have a better idea of what they were voting for.

 

But I would stipulate that any 2nd referendum not be held until any renegotiations had been officially ratified, so that they could not be reneged in the event of the original referendum result being reversed.

 

Personally though, no renegotiation would change my vote, as my decision was based on loss of sovereignty, rather than any of the scaremongering by *either* side.

Edited June 29, 20169 yr by vidcapper

I bet all those MP's who are claiming the referendum is 'only advisory' would have claimed it as gospel if the result had gone the other way... :rolleyes:

I agree with the Dan, it should never have gone to the public. Unlike the recent Irish ref on equal marriage, it wasn't an easy enough yes/no question. People didn't understand the possible consiquences and what they were voting for. As a result, the country is in the biggest political mess I've seen.

 

I don't really get where they get the numbers but apparently more than 1 million people who voted leave wish they could change their vote... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/polit...e-a7105116.html

 

Having read that article, I have to say it is disingenuous to quote the estimated number of 'regretful leavers' without also listing the numbers who regret voting for Remain.

 

The figures quoted are 1.130m in the former category, and 0.696m in the latter, giving a net switch of 0.434m - too few to have changed the overall result.

Parliament.

 

All that the people voted for was to Leave. There was no further detail or breakdown on what that meant. The people arguing for leave dont agree what it means, the public dont agree what it means, they have no idea what it means or what the consequences of each and every scenario means. That's why we elect people who do (or are supposed to) know what they are doing.

 

If there is a second referendum the Leavers will be split over what exactly that means, which means the Norway model will win. If the majority of MP's get their way, the Norway model will win. Now that we have seen the chaos that Leave means, the appetite for years of more of it will eat into the Leave support gradually. I don't believe there is a case to reverse the vote unless a party wins an election with that as it's central reason for existing.

But I would stipulate that any 2nd referendum not be held until any renegotiations had been officially ratified, so that they could not be reneged in the event of the original referendum result being reversed.

 

Personally though, no renegotiation would change my vote, as my decision was based on loss of sovereignty, rather than any of the scaremongering by *either* side.

Even though you still haven't managed to provide a single significant example of where that supposed loss of sovereignty has been a bad thing. Other Leave campaigners have also been unable to provide any examples.

Even though you still haven't managed to provide a single significant example of where that supposed loss of sovereignty has been a bad thing.

 

OK, then - the EU tells us to give votes to prisoners, a policy that a large majority of the electorate resists - including even some people who've backed the Remain campaign.

 

The issue of deporting convicted criminals is another example.

OK, then - the EU tells us to give votes to prisoners, a policy that a large majority of the electorate resists - including even some people who've backed the Remain campaign.

 

The issue of deporting convicted criminals is another example.

No it didn't. That was the ECHR and it said that the blanket ban on prisoners voting was wrong. It left the way open for some (possibly even most) prisoners still being barred from voting. Frankly, I don't see why most prisoners should not be able to vote. Regardless, it is hardly a major issue. Similarly, the butcher who voted Leave so that he could sell mince in pounds and ounces (not that he was prevented form doing so in the first place) will get no sympathy from me if his business goes bankrupt.

 

Similarly, we are able to deport criminals, subject to certain safeguards like them not being in danger of torture after deportation. That proviso seems perfectly reasonable for a supposedly civilised country. EU membership also includes the European Arrest Warrant which makes it a lot easier for criminals and alleged criminals to be brought back to the UK to face justice. There must be a lot of British criminals in Spain who will be only too pleased when the UK can no longer use this device.