What do you think?

Even if the deal goes through on 12 March, it would be highly irresponsible and undemocratic for the government to rush through so much legislation without appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny for 29 March. Equally, it wouldn't be great for them to ignore the referendum and just stay in and revoke Article 50. Any such decision should come from a vote of the people who, contrary to popular Tory myth, ARE allowed to change their will over time and in full possession of the facts.

The critical date is 2 July - that is when the next EU Parliament is due to start. It is possible that an extension (and increasingly likely IMO) from 29 March to that date will be sought in order to confirm a deal.

I can see there being a consensus for 2 months initially and maybe then up to the end of the current Parliament.

 

The only issue is, would we have to go ahead with EU elections just in case we change our minds again and don't actually leave by 1 July?!

The only issue is, would we have to go ahead with EU elections just in case we change our minds again and don't actually leave by 1 July?!

 

I think as long as a deal is agreed 'in principle' before mid-May then the leaving date can still be the end of June without any reason for this to be the case.

If we are still members of the EU when the new parliament sits for the first time, we are entitled to have members. The elections are due at the end of May, but I suspect we would need to hold them in June if we end up holding them. Some countries have gained extra seats because of the loss of the UK's seats. I would guess they would have to keep those seats with the elections so close.

 

 

f*** the referendum!!!

Even if the deal goes through on 12 March, it would be highly irresponsible and undemocratic for the government to rush through so much legislation without appropriate Parliamentary scrutiny for 29 March. Equally, it wouldn't be great for them to ignore the referendum and just stay in and revoke Article 50. Any such decision should come from a vote of the people who, contrary to popular Tory myth, ARE allowed to change their will over time and in full possession of the facts.

 

As long as that doesn't mean just the 'approved' version of them. Both sides must be allowed to campaign however they see fit.

 

f*** the referendum!!!

 

ANY referenda, or just the ones you don't like the result of? :teresa:

 

Just this one

Just this one

 

Because it's one you care about, or because the result was close?

Because it's one you care about, or because the result was close?

Lots of reasons. The result of the referendum doesn't have legitimacy or the support of the UK electorate because:

 

- a binary question was asked when the array of options means that it wasn't a Yes/No question;

- those potential outcomes/plans were not made clear beforehand. There was no 2014-style White Paper for Leave, and in any case the White Paper based on the 2016 Leave campaign would've proven woefully inaccurate;

- the result was extremely close;

- the winning campaign lied and broke the law;

- the referendum was advisory which meant that the government interpreted the result of the referendum to suit their agenda;

- nearly 3 years have passed since the referendum, which is becoming an increasingly significant length of time - over half an electoral cycle. During this period, many things have happened that might make the 2016 choice clearer;

- the electorate has also changed - over 2 million people have reached voting age, and over 1.5 million have died. This 3.5 million is far, far bigger than the margin that Leave won by;

- many people have changed their mind during this time (in both directions! which is why polls have only shifted a little bit);

- immigration is far less salient of an issue now but it was a huge part of the Leave campaign.

- we're at an impasse and we have exhausted other options that might otherwise have been preferable (general election, passing the deal, renegotiating another deal). We have to do something. Extending article 50 is still an option on the table, but this just means that we're still going to run into the exact same problems in June.

 

Now that things are clearer, another referendum would give a clearer mandate for the country to accept. Not a solution without huge problems and I'm sure the next referendum will also be a shitshow, but that's the nature of Brexit - everyone loses, this would give us a chance of cutting our losses.

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by Harve

Lots of reasons. The result of the referendum doesn't have legitimacy or the support of the UK electorate because:

 

- a binary question was asked when the array of options means that it wasn't a Yes/No question;

- those potential outcomes/plans were not made clear beforehand. There was no 2014-style White Paper for Leave, and in any case the White Paper based on the 2016 Leave campaign would've proven woefully inaccurate;

- the result was extremely close;

- the winning campaign lied and broke the law;

- the referendum was advisory which meant that the government interpreted the result of the referendum to suit their agenda;

- nearly 3 years have passed since the referendum, which is becoming an increasingly significant length of time - over half an electoral cycle. During this period, many things have happened that might make the 2016 choice clearer;

- the electorate has also changed - over 2 million people have reached voting age, and over 1.5 million have died. This 3.5 million is far, far bigger than the margin that Leave won by;

- many people have changed their mind during this time (in both directions! which is why polls have only shifted a little bit);

- immigration is far less salient of an issue now but it was a huge part of the Leave campaign.

- we're at an impasse and we have exhausted other options that might otherwise have been preferable (general election, passing the deal, renegotiating another deal). We have to do something. Extending article 50 is still an option on the table, but this just means that we're still going to run into the exact same problems in June.

 

Now that things are clearer, another referendum would give a clearer mandate for the country to accept. Not a solution without huge problems and I'm sure the next referendum will also be a shitshow, but that's the nature of Brexit - everyone loses, this would give us a chance of cutting our losses.

 

1. A multi-choice referenda is very problematic, as no single option is likely to gain a majority.

 

2. There was no White Paper on Leaving, as those in power had no interest in creating one - but that in itself is not a valid reason for holding a referendum.

 

3. Yes, it was close, but all that was required was a simple majority.

 

4a. Both sides lied.

4b. It is impossible to prove that overspending made a decisive difference.

 

5. Huh? The government was in favour of Remain, as they made clear in the leaflet.

 

6. Things always change, but if we waited *in case they did*, nothing would *ever* happen.

 

7&8. The electorate is always changing, but if we took that into account too much, we'd be having elections every week! Also, you appear to be assuming that almost all of the 3.5m would vote Remain. If fact, they'd have to split more than 2-1 in favour of Remain to change the result - an extremely unlikely outcome, as I'm sure you'd agree. :)

 

9. I disagree. Immigration is still as much of an issue as it ever was - it's just become ever more politically incorrect to discuss it...

 

10.Covered elsewhere

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by vidcapper

As you probably guessed I voted for the third option.

f*** the referendum!!!

 

 

A very worrying attitude. Would you say "F*** the election" then next time and let the Tories govern indefinitely?

A very worrying attitude. Would you say "F*** the election" then next time and let the Tories govern indefinitely?

Elections are not advisory. As a consequence, the result of an individual election can be annulled if the winning side is found to have broken the law.

A very worrying attitude. Would you say "F*** the election" then next time and let the Tories govern indefinitely?

 

Your attitude is decidedly more worrying. You’re essentially saying ‘F**k the country’ just so you can indulge your low key racism.

Extend with another referendum with a clearer mandate. Ideally, a referendum where one side doesn't break the law.

 

People change their minds and things change. You cannot undermine democracy with democracy.

7&8. The electorate is always changing, but if we took that into account too much, we'd be having elections every week! Also, you appear to be assuming that almost all of the 3.5m would vote Remain. If fact, they'd have to split more than 2-1 in favour of Remain to change the result - an extremely unlikely outcome, as I'm sure you'd agree. :)

 

Well, no. It's not 3.5 million new voters.

 

We have 1.5 million deaths, let's assume largely among the over-65s, which were approx a 65-35 split between Leave and Remain. So we lose about 970k Leavers and 530k Remainers, taking it down to 16.4m Leavers, 15.6m Remainers.

 

2 million new young voters we should assume take after a similar demographic model as the youngest group that voted, which is about 30-70 Leave and Remain, so not so extremely unlikely. This makes for 600k new Leave voters, 1.4 million new Remain voters. Making the predicted results of demographic shift 17 million all in (as indeed a couple of months ago we passed that threshold). Unfinished business by a long way, particularly as it will continue to trend in one direction.

 

And that's before assuming anyone changes their minds. Which plenty of people will probably have had reason to, given the events of the last 32 months.

Actually all of those rebuttals are pretty bad, ranging from 'but the Remainers are just as bad' to 'you can't prove that there was overspending even though its existence throws democracy into question' to a statement about generally having to wait for things to change that just seems to ignore the reality of this specific case but this one...

 

2. There was no White Paper on Leaving, as those in power had no interest in creating one - but that in itself is not a valid reason for holding a referendum.

 

Might it not be the biggest reason yet?! The reason a second referendum is being considered as a serious possibility and not just a fantasy from certain Europhiles is that the Brexit process has so far been nothing but a clown fiesta and a car crash by an incompetent government with no plan on leaving. It may have been out of the voters' control to ensure one was produced but that there wasn't made a mockery of the whole process from the beginning.

Elections are not advisory. As a consequence, the result of an individual election can be annulled if the winning side is found to have broken the law.

 

But that doesn't mean the result is overturned, just rejected - it would have to be re-fought on the *same* basis.

 

and need I remind you of the Winchester by-election - originally won by 2 votes, but when a rerun was ordered, the public was so pissed off that they increased that margin to over 21,000!

Edited February 26, 20196 yr by vidcapper